Pat Robertson Reacts to Ken Ham’s Performance

This is a delightful response to ol’ Hambo’s lackluster showing in the debate with Bill Nye last night. In this two-minute video, apparently recorded after the debate, Pat Robertson, host of The 700 Club and Chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network, tells his followers: “Let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

He’s confused about a detail here and there (so was Bill Nye), but Robertson sounds like an old-Earth theistic evolutionist. Check it out.

Copyright © 2014. 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 “Pat Robertson Reacts to Ken Ham’s Performance

  1. Watch Ken Ham and Georgia Purdom discuss the debate at on Wednesday 2/5/14 at 8:00 PM (ET)/ 5:00 PM (PT)

    Bill Nye Scores on Debate Presentation if Not Logic

    Clash over worldviews

    Ken Ham vs Bill Nye Post-debate Show

    From 2012:

    Bill Nye Fails Baloney Detector

  2. Love it.

    “Bishop Usher, God bless him, rest his soul in peace, he was just off.”

    I’m sure that will get under Ham’s already tenderized skin.

  3. DB implores, “Watch Ken Ham and Georgia Purdom discuss the debate…”


    I watched the debate last night, and heard what Ham had to say then. And if I hadn’t seen it last night, I’d watch it on YouTube today.

    If Ham had anything important to say, he would have said it last night. He certainly had plenty of time to prepare for it.

  4. This from Wikipedia:

    “The Ussher chronology is a 17th-century chronology of the history of the world formulated from a literal reading of the Bible by James Ussher, the Archbishop of Armagh (Church of Ireland). … Ussher deduced that the first day of creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC.”

    He published his work circa 1640.

    So, Ken Ham is basing his entire Creationism Empire on one man’s interpretation of the Bible done more than 360 years ago. Meanwhile, modern science is basing our idea of reality based on the work of several hundreds of thousands of scientists studying and observing the actual world and universe, done over the last few hundred years, using all methods available to us, and refining our ideas continually as we gain new knowledge.

    Who ya gonna believe?

  5. Paley wasn’t a bishop, nor did he make it to the episcopate. It’s a common misconception, the highest position he actually reached was Archdeacon of Carlisle in 1782. I love this video though. If you’re a Christian and Pat Robertson says you lost a debate, you lost big time.

  6. AIG is already spinning the result.

    “What Nye needs is not a piece of evidence, but the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

  7. I like Jason Rosenhouse’s observation about the Ham/Nye debate he made on his EvolutionBlog

    But I do think there was a clear loser in the debate: the intelligent design crowd. This was the biggest event in the evolution vs. creationism battle in quite some time, and it was good ol’ young-Earth creationism that was on display. Once you factor in the extensive online audience and the other media coverage, the message everyone will have received is that anti-evolutionism is just equivalent to Bible-thumping obscurantism. This was precisely the notion ID was invented to dispel. Seeing Ham drone on and on about the Bible, to the point of defending the plausibility of Noah’s ark for heaven’s sake, must have had the ID folks seething. It’s one of the endearing features of YEC’s that they make no attempt to hide their religious motivations. This is why they drive the ID folks crazy.

  8. Megalonyx quotes Jason Rosenhouse:

    But I do think there was a clear loser in the debate: the intelligent design crowd.

    That’s not how the Discoveroids see it. I donno if I’ll bother to blog about this or not, but their latest is In the Ham-Nye Debate, Not So Much as a Glove Was Laid on Intelligent Design. What they don’t grasp — or won’t admit — is that they don’t have anything, so there’s nothing to bother with.

  9. And this is wonderful: Klingy’s fresh blog piece As an Antidote to the Ham-Nye Creation Debate Fiasco, Listen to Stephen Meyer Debate Charles Marshall

    I’m terribly regretful about Tuesday night’s debate pitting creationist Ken Ham against “Science Guy” Bill Nye before as many as 532,000 viewers on YouTube. I say that as someone, an Orthodox Jew, who very much cares that Christians should be strengthened in their own faith. For many who watched, the event was likely corrosive of that faith.
    If I were a supporter of Ken Ham and his enterprises, Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum, I would be rethinking my support today, considering where my time, passion, energy and perhaps my treasure as well is best invested.

    Hmmmm…I wonder if Klingy could suggest to whom disaffected Hammites might redirect their “treasure”?

  10. On the Discoveroid reaction to Ham/Nye debate, Our Curmudgeon notes:

    What they don’t grasp — or won’t admit — is that they don’t have anything, so there’s nothing to bother with.

    I think that’s Rosenhouse’s point: all this coverage and media attention about a ‘challenge’ to Evolution, and the Discoveroids don’t even merit a mention. They are irrelevant, and it is eating them alive!

  11. I don’t always agree with Pat Robertson, but when I do, I drink Dos Equis. Or whatever’s within reach.

  12. Christine Janis

    From the “post debate” show with Hovind Junior.

    “A mother deciding to kill the unborn child in her womb — that’s survival of the fittest.”

    I stopped watching at that point.

  13. From the post debate video:

    “I’m Eric Hovind…”

    I stopped at that point.

  14. OK, I was a big critic of this debate.

    I watched it live and Nye did better than I thought he would and Hambo was definitely on the defensive and off his game to boot. I knew old Hambo had only one play and although that works sufficiently in a 3-minute YouTube interview, it doesn’t work so well in a 2-HOUR presentation. Hambo sounded tired and old as he simply answered every question with, essentially, “God did it that way” and never addressed Nye’s call for a prediction. Well, how could Hambo possibly do that?

    I thought Nye was good to keep to his scripted message and the few odd moments were when he went “off the reservation,” so to speak, and winged it or tried to entertain the audience which, definitely, didn’t come there to be entertained! (All of Nye’s jokes that cracked me up fell flat in Kentucky.”

    Bottom line: Nye did much, much better than I expected. Hambo did much, much worse than I expected.

    Potential: It could be that Nye lit a fuse that will explode creationism, including “intelligent design” as detrimental to education and the future success of the country. If that discussion continues, it could spread to extinguishing the Disco Tute’s phony academic freedom bills and the rest of it. Possibly. If so, that would be Nye’s greatest contribution.

  15. Thank you, DB, for posting a video of three of the most clueless gits in Christendom. When his daddy gets out of prison, I wonder if Eric will still have his exalted position at their “ministry.” What a hoot!!

  16. OT, but has anyone seen any recent news about the Hamster’s Ark Park junk bonds? Tomorrow, I think, is a deadline for the sale of enough of them to not trigger automatic redemptions of them.

  17. waldteufel asks: “OT, but has anyone seen any recent news about the Hamster’s Ark Park junk bonds? Tomorrow, I think, is a deadline for the sale of enough of them to not trigger automatic redemptions of them.”

    I’ve been looking. Nothing yet. And that also means no announcements from Hambo.

  18. Christine Janis

    “That’s why if you were saddened by Ham-Nye, or even if you weren’t, you’ll cheer yourself up by listening to the recent debate on British radio in which Stephen Meyer, author of Darwin’s Doubt, faced off against UC Berkeley paleontologist Charles Marshall and argued most persuasively for intelligent design. – See more at:

    Woah— love the way that Charles stays civil, even accomodating, throughout the debate, and then slams Meyer at the end. Remind me again why thought we should listen to this.

  19. Pat is like the crazy cat lady on the Simpsons…he sometimes has moments of lucidity. This is the same guy that prayed a hurricane away, heals people with his word of knowledge through the t.v., as well as a whole assortment of crazy grandpa moments. Still I’m glad he’s pushing an old earth and evolution. I’m actually a bit surprised he would be so emphatic, as taking a side is a good way to push members of the flock that he fleeces away. Of course Pat has it made in the shade already, even if he didn’t have that African diamond mine.
    I’m in the process of watching the debate. Currently it seems more like competing power point presentations with way too much Ken Ham.

  20. This could be the beginning of the end. More and more Christian organizations have been given the opportunity to stand up on national tv and say that creationism is a mistake.

  21. Thanks for the heads up, Christine . . . .interesting debate clip — especially at the end.

  22. Spector567 hopes

    This could be the beginning of the end.

    I think that rather too optimistic (I don’t think there will ever be an end to Whack-a-Mole, for the regenerative powers of human stupidity are boundless), but I have to admit Nye got about as good a result as possible out of an event which I was quite certain–and wrongly so–would be a shambles.

    I had overlooked that the setting of the topic — the ‘viability’ of the Creationist approach — put the focus where it needed to be in order to illustrate that any real answers here are a slam-dunk and shouldn’t detain a rational person for a minute.

    And I think the longer-term benefit to hope for here is the exposure of the real discord in Creationism’s ‘Big Tent’, and how badly this wrong foots the Intelligent Design clowns and their pathetic ‘we aren’t creationists’ spiel. They may only be fooling themselves with that line, but it will be a bit harder for them to fool anyone new to this. Not that they won’t keep trotting out their same old nonsense, utterly shameless and mendacious scum that they are.

  23. Ham now has a post-debate blog post called “We must all be reminded what’s at stake”:

    Here we are told that Ham and Nye alike are both trying to shape the hearts and minds of the next generation, and Ham’s angle is of course that the poor kids must be taught the “infallible Word of God” before they succumb to the terrible evils of secularism. Curious how indoctrinating kids to blindly believe in a hoary Bronze Age text is presented by Ham as something wonderful and beneficial, whereas letting the children know about the conclusions of centuries of actual _research_ is seen as vicious and sinister propaganda for atheism.

    We must be reminded what’s at stake, indeed. (Lame pun alert:) A number of centuries ago, when all of society was totally dominated by the Bible literalism so dear to Ham’s heart, people were regularly BURNED AT THE STAKE for disagreeing with the religious authorities.

  24. I found this in the Guardian. It’s got 22 idiotic creationist questions and some rather snappy answers. There’s no way to blog about it without copying the whole thing, and there’s no need for that. Click over there and read 22 answers for creationists from someone who understands evolution.

  25. My favorite question is the one about thermodynamics, because it’s asked in the museum run by the man who’s website says you shouldn’t use that argument. At least a handful of the question askers had to be poes.

  26. I watched the debate on a flight yesterday morning. I like when Nye referred to scientists “out there” as in, not the crazy people at AIG.
    One the plus side, Ham showed how pathetic and ignorant he is to a huge audience if you count the live stream and YouTube watchers.
    When a Christian says something so unbelievably stupid that Pat Roberson has to do damage control to distance himself from him, that is quite an accomplishment.

  27. Klinghoffer, in his post post-debate reversal of reality, tries to flip the frame and take us to Bizarro World, by equating evolutionists to… wait for it… Ken Ham. Yes, Klinghoffer admits that Ken Ham lost, so easy peezy lemon squeezy, he says evolutionists are equivalent to Ken Ham.

    How does Dirty Clotheshamper perform the frame-flipping? First, he quotes Luskin saying how Ken Hem lost:

    [T]he great majority of his arguments amounted — over and over again — to “Because the Bible says so.” Nye’s main argument was, “Because the evidence says so,”

    Then Doofus Crowdhoaxer points us to a radio mini-debate between paleontologist Charles Marshall and IDologue Stephen “I don’t know the difference between RNA and protein” Meyer, summarized by Klinghitler as follows:

    “The Meyer-Marshall debate is very different. There, it’s Marshall the defender of Darwinian evolution who’s thrown back to a position of faith, basically “Because naturalism says so.” Whereas Meyer’s main argument is, “Because the evidence says so.”

    Got that? Bill Nye won the debate, so now ID proponents are equal to… Bill Nye! And evolutionists now equal… Ken Ham!

    This is analogous to the creationist “Galileo frame-flip.” The creationists relate the story of Christian authorities persecuting Galileo, and then simply flip it: the scientists of today are equivalent to the Christian authorities of 1600 and the Christian authorities of today are equivalent to scientists of 1600. Ahblblblblblbl.

  28. As some of you may know, I’m in a twitter war with Klinghoffer, a bit one-sided. This is what I tweeted at Klinghoffer, from @DiogenesLamp0:

    Bill Nye wins debate vs. creo, so now IDer @d_klinghoffer equates IDer Steve Meyer to…Bill Nye! & Evos = KHam! LOL!


    @d_klinghoffer makes up fake quote from Charles Marshall: evolution true “Because naturalism says so.” This quote as real as evidence 4 ID!


    @d_klinghoffer admits ID is 2 promote Xianity, he “very much cares.. Xians should be strengthened in their own faith”

  29. This is O/T but I have previously mentioned how ICR is shooting movies with a scientist (possibly fake?) in front of a definitely fake laboratory, with racks of new, empty test tubes and flasks of blue and yellow food coloring. This is discussed by Eye on ICR.

    Because creationists are so fond of posing in lab coats in a context where lab coats are not normal nor required (no scientist wears a lab coat while presenting a Power Point presentation, or reading the Bible), and posing in front of fake labs, I’ve created a new Twitter hashtag:


    As in:

    ICR Creationists shoot video in fake lab, w/ empty test tubes, flasks of blu & yellow food coloring: #fakelabcoat

    Can anyone else find some examples of creationists in fake lab coats and fake labs, for tweeting?

  30. Also off topic, but Cardinal Diogenes reminded me about Jonathan Park, an ICR produced radio program for kids. I listened to the most recent program, which featured the Second Law of Thermodynamics as proof that evolution cannot work. Nothing new there, but what surprised me is they actually address the “not a closed system” flaw — by adding in Hoyle’s fallacy (Tornado in a Junkyard) requiring a Designer to create order. Nothing like addressing one error with another.

  31. @Diogenes: He’s definitely not a scientist, and I don’t think he’s even pretending to be. That only makes the fake lab even weirder.

    @Tomato Addict: Isn’t Jonathan Park a product of the late lamented Vision Forum?