Ken Ham: 20 Years of Imaginary Glory

We don’t have much to say about this, but in the absence of any other news we thought we should mention it. At the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), the online ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), we found this: Happy 20th Birthday, Answers in Genesis.

It’s written by ol’ Hambo himself, and it’s loaded with self-praise. Here’s a sample:

Yes, 20 years ago today, the ministry that became known as Answers in Genesis was officially incorporated. … Thus began an outreach ministry that has grown to where it is today with the outreach of the Creation Museum, one of the most-accessed Christian websites in the world, and the coming Ark Encounter project that is estimated to reach millions of people with the truth of God’s Word and the gospel.

Verily, this is an achievement worth celebrating. Hambo continues:

With a staff of nearly 300 dedicated and talented Christians, and numerous high-quality resources (including books, DVDs, award-winning Answers magazine, VBS curricula, Answers Bible Curriculum, and much more), AiG has reached millions and millions of people in the USA and around the world with the creation/gospel message.

Wow — they’ve got 300 people on the payroll. Anyway, he drones on and on, and then it gets strange:

Sometimes as I walk around the Creation Museum and the AiG offices, warehouse, studios, workshops, etc., I just thank the Lord for what He has done. … The growth of AiG and the opening of the Creation Museum and the ongoing Ark Encounter project have not been without their battles! But as we look back, we can see the great victories (though sometimes in different ways than we envisaged) the Lord has given.


In looking back at all the battles (whether over obtaining the land for the Creation Museum or the many other battles over the years), I am reminded of so many victories God has given us and also recall that great warrior Joshua: [scripture quote].

See any pattern here? Whatever Hambo has done, the Lord has done. This is an amazing display of self-aggrandizement. God isn’t on your side, dear reader. You dwell in darkness. Hambo walks in the light. How do we know? He says so. One more excerpt:

Yes, we can truly say, the Lord our God has fought for us and continues to do so. The battles continue — for example, the battle to get the Ark Encounter project finished. God has been fighting for us (and continues to fight for us), and He will see us through.

How does one disagree with a personality like that? How is any kind of dialog possible — other than totally servile praise and promises of obedience?

Does Hambo ever wonder why his Ark project isn’t funded yet, or why his bond issue hasn’t been successful? You didn’t know about that? See Ken Ham’s Ark Bonds — 19 Dec 2013 Update.

That kind of setback would raise doubts in most people. Does Hambo have doubts? Probably not. But if heaven is on Hambo’s side, then how does he explain why his bond issue flopped? How does he explain the annual decline in attendance at his creation museum?

Beyond that, how does he explain the amazing success of the theory of evolution, and the thousands of museums that display its evidence? What about astronomy, and all the other sciences that disagree with the foolishness he promotes? How do those enjoy global success among educated people, while Hambo’s enterprise caters only to primitive rustics? Whose side is God on, anyway?

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

25 responses to “Ken Ham: 20 Years of Imaginary Glory

  1. Ken Ham: “The battles continue — for example, the battle to get the Ark Encounter project finished.”

    Words of desperation.

  2. Charles Deetz ;)

    How demonstrably false it is to say: “Yes, we can truly say, the Lord our God has fought for us and continues to do so.” Right up there with ‘God cured the cancer.’ Another ‘improbable’ miracle of the second type.

  3. I’m not feeling too ambition tonight so I probed around Hambo’s site. A recent post griped about the “Walking with Dinosaurs” movie because, among several beefs Hambo has with it, it portrays dinosaurs as having feathers. Hambo retorts there is no evidence dinosaurs had feathers and it is only used to prove evolution. Is he correct?

  4. Troy — of course dinosaurs have feathers!! There are 30-something species with feathers; see Wikipedia.

    The IDiots decided if it has a feather it’s not a dinosaur, and if it’s a dinosaur it doesn’t have “true” feathers. So various word games are introduced to claim dino-fuzz is not feathers.

    Bottom line: you know velociraptor, villain of Jurassic Park? It had arm feathers, as indicated by quill knobs on its bones, bumps where feather cartilage attaches. Go to Google images and search for velociraptor quill knobs.

    Another example: Consider the alvarezsaur, an ancestor of maniraptorans, hence birds. A particular fossil of an alvarezsaur, Shuvuuia if I recall, was shown by Mary Schweitzer to have traces of beta keratin, but not alpha keratin, which is indicative of feathers and only feathers.

    To this much else could be added: microraptor, Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosurus, etc. etc.

  5. P.S. Before quill knobs were found on velociraptor, the species had been predicted to have feathers by evolutionary considerations, specifically the method of phylogenetic bracketing.

  6. As for AIG’s 20 great years, recall the ugly and embarassing divorce that the US-based operation under Ken Ham had with the Australian organization under Jonathan Sarfati and Carl Wieland. Sarfati later released a packet of embarrassing documents showing that Ken Ham’s side accused Wieland’s future wife of witchcraft because a black cat acted funny, and the creationists threw grape juice around Ken Ham’s office to exercise her demon minions (so say Sarfati’s documents). Sarfati released those out of pure spite– he’s one mean son of a bitch.

  7. Ken Hambug clearly also hasn’t contemplated the monumental incongruity of an ostensible all-powerful being needing to engage in an ongoing struggle to achieve worldly goals.

  8. One day there will be no creationists for the curmudgeon to write about except a few drooling invalids mumbling in old folks’ homes

  9. @ladyatheist.

    As much as I wish that were true, I think you know it won’t be in our lifetimes. I do think though, that the Biblical creationism peddlers are slowly on their way out, and that only the media, and unfortunately many critics, and not their fans, are what keeps them on “life support.” The growing problem is the new postmodern forms of creationism that are sounding persuasive even to many nonreligious nonscientists.

    One reason I became so fascinated with the anti-evolution movement (and its evolution) was in the late 90s when I discovered online discussion boards. There I noticed several people who were not Biblical literalists nevertheless raving about this “real scientist” (Michael Behe) who found “real problems” with evolution. At one point I almost fell for that scam. And I briefly did fall for “it’s fair to teach both sides in science class.” I naively thought that comparing evidence for literal Genesis (I hadn’t even known of the OEC versions that most literalists prefer to the cartoonish YEC) to that of evolution would convince 90+% of students of evolution. I quickly changed my mind when I leaned that anti-evolution activists (Biblical or otherwise) do not want that side-by-side comparison, but rather only the long-refuted “weaknesses” evolution. Without the refutations of course, and without any of the real weaknesses, not to mention hopeless contradictions, of literal Genesis.

  10. “With a staff of nearly 300 dedicated and talented Christians”
    who have contributed exactly nothing, because

    “look what God has done today!” and “It’s a God thing.”

    “also recall that great warrior Joshua”
    Hey, Ol’ Hambo, your god is not whispering in your ear to prepare genocide on us atheists, is he? Because that great warrior slaughtered tons of Canaanites and inhabitants of Jericho, if we take the Bible literally as we should according to you.

  11. @Diogenes: “It had arm feathers”
    You understand zilch of creacrap science. This obviously means that velociraptor was partly bird (its wings) and partly dinosaurus. How is that possible? Goddidid of course! Just like the crocoduck.
    Now don’t start me on how the crocoduck was a creacrap argument against Evilution, because you amoral atheist communist nazi Darwinists have admitted yourselves that the crocoduck would confirm creacrap.
    Creacrap scrience rules! Got you, atheist.

  12. Stephen Kennedy

    Ham seems to be in a state of denial following the failure of the ark encounter bond offering and is pushing harder than ever for donations to the project. He refuses to accept the reality that there are not enough investors that are willing to put the money in this thing that it needs to get built.

    Ham still has made no mention of the bond offering on his website and except for ever more urgent pleas for donations has not addressed the issue of ark encounter funding.

  13. “Sarfati released those out of pure spite”
    Do you have a link for this, Diogenes? This makes a great episode in the serial “Unrest in Reliland”. I cannot think of a better way for us to honour the Ayatollah of the Appalachian.

    @Frank J: “I quickly changed my mind”
    A honest human being doesn’t have any other option.

  14. Breathless words from Ol’ Hambo: “God has been fighting for us (and continues to fight for us), and He will see us through.”
    Now we know why Hambo’s lord god almighty hasn’t been able to figure out how to grow amputated limbs, cure cancer (one of his nastier inventions), or whisper the winning lotto numbers into my ears . . . the creator of the entire universe is too busy conning old ladies and little kids out of their social security and milk money so Hambo can build a landlocked boat to draw in the rubes and take ’em for even more money.

  15. Nothing like celebrating your ongoing march to the dark ages!

  16. “Hambo retorts there is no evidence dinosaurs had feathers and it is only used to prove evolution. Is he correct?”

    Ham and his colleague Golden are lying for Genesis.

  17. AIG and CMI are both businesses. That’s all there is to it. You can bet your bottom peso that old Hambo jumps through every tax loophole he can find. Enough is never enough for these guys.

  18. There is no need to turn up evidence to demonstrate evolution.
    Genesis does not have anything to say about feathers on dinosaurs.

  19. mnbo: “@Frank J: ‘I quickly changed my mind’
    An honest human being doesn’t have any other option”

    All honest people, and even some not-so honest ones, would change their minds. I bet ~90% would, if they ever get to see what a scam it is. Unfortunately <10% ever take the time to do so.

  20. @mbno: ““Sarfati released those out of pure spite”

    Do you have a link for this, Diogenes? This makes a great episode in the serial “Unrest in Reliland”.

    The old link is here: nformation Package. [] presents documents that Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis supported John Mackay’s accusations of witchcraft and necrophilia against Carl Wieland’s future wife. (pdf). I think there is an updated package on the internet somewhere, which is similar, but doubles down on the claim that Mackay definitely accused Wieland’s future wife of necrophilia. He also told her “Your husband is Lucifer”; she was a widow at the time. Note that Carl Wieland, the pious moral Christian, divorced his old wife and married the future Mrs. Wieland two weeks later.

    That is a long package of documents. The money shot is on page 46, a reprint of the article “Witches Today? A Christian Tragedy”, from New Life (a Christian newspaper), June 2, 1988. It is an interview with Wieland’s wife, who behaves very rationally when she is the one accused of witchcraft (not so rationally when her side accuses their accusers of being controlled by Satan.)

    Wieland’s wife, then Ken Ham’s secretary, says:

    “It sounds incredible but a major reason [for John Mackay’s accusations of witchcraft] was this: a black cat had come to live in his roof, and he suspected it of being demon-possessed. He stared hard at it, and one of its eyelids was supposed to have drooped. The next day he stared hard at me [Wieland’s wife] and he says that one of my eyelids drooped, too.

    …For example, he was feeling low one day and smashed a small token gift I had given him, and he said that he felt better afterwards. On another occasion a painting I had provided for his office was blamed for causing illness in someone…

    …he had discussed his feelings with a number of other Christians, including pastors. It hurts to think that many of them judged me guilty, and yet they had never met me.

    …The girls in the [Ken Ham’s] office at the time had been pressured to bring in any little gifts I may have given them so that they could be burned…

    People went into my [Ken Ham’s] office following the directions of so-called “experts”, and splashed grape juice around everything, at the same time muttering incantations.

    Oh sure, you atheists may scoff, but what proof do you have that saying magic words while splashing grape juice around Ken Ham’s office doesn’t exorcise invisible demons that possess black cats? Don’t you know demons are invisible? You atheists just assume demons don’t exist because there’s no evidence they do. Checkmate, atheists! Continuing:

    “How can I describe how that feels—to have your reputation, your life and your Christian character literally assassinated before your eyes?” [“Witches Today? A Christian Tragedy”, New Life (Christian newspaper), June 2, 1988. Cited in: Information package]

    That’s right! Christians should not assassinate the reputations of other Christians; they should assassinate the reputations of scientists! Keep in mind that this woman was Ken Ham’s secretary at the time Ham was writing The Lie: Evolution, with its crude cartoons of lying, biased scientists and its cover illustration of a satanic serpent holding out the green apple of “Evolution.” She is thanked by Ken Ham, IIRC, in the acknowledgements of that book. So she and her future husband Wieland, founder of CMI, do not object to accusations of Satanic control backed up by no evidence– they only object to such accusations when they’re directed against them personally.

    Although Wieland’s side gets very huffy and compares Mackay’s side to the behavior of Christians during the Dark Ages– still, each side accuses the other of being directed by Satan, and in addition they all agree scientists are controlled by Satan, so there is no “rational” side in the dispute.

  21. Oh drat, Curm can you fix my hyperlink? Replace “%5D” with a space and a close bracket. The URL should end with “.pdf”.

  22. Diogenes says: “Oh drat, Curm can you fix my hyperlink?”

    I re-did both of them. They look the same, but I’m not sure.

  23. “There is no need to turn up evidence to demonstrate evolution.
    Genesis does not have anything to say about feathers on dinosaurs.” Ham and co pretend otherwise. Why? So they can use the Bible to ‘refute’ all unbiblical evolutionary theories (and any feather remnants on dinosaur fossils – if such discoveries should enter the minds of creationist fundamentalists – are a dangerous piece of evidence that points to evolution beyond ‘kind boundaries’ eg land animals becoming birds which is biblically ‘impossible’ because they were separately created on different ‘days’).

  24. Point being that if really dinosaurs existed they must have been created as such on the sixth day as mentioned in Genesis (the day after the creation of birds), and therefore were around during part of the last 6,000 years including after Noah’s Flood (and behemoth mentioned in Job 40 must have been a dino as well – mustn’t it?)

  25. Why would a land animal have feathers if it was not a ‘bird’ and was not intended to fly or glide? Thus the Bible ‘rules out’ both evolution beyond ‘kinds’ and feathered dinosaurs. Thus sayeth the young earth creationist.