An Ark-Load of Trash from Ken Ham

This one is bad — really bad. Every sentence is outrageously wrong. It’s written by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), and it’s possibly the worst pile we’ve ever seen. The thing is titled Evolution — A Proven Fact?

This thing is so outstandingly horrible that we’re going to change our style. Instead of putting some of Hambo’s stuff in bold for emphasis, we’ll just add some commentary here and there, as the mood strikes us. You’ll be able to tell the difference between Hambo’s words and ours [because ours will be red].

But we must caution you: Before proceeding any further, warn those around you that although you are likely to experience uncontrollable vomiting and diarrhea, you don’t have Ebola. To put them at ease, you may want to wear a contamination suit. And be sure to keep a barf bucket handy. Okay, let’s get started.

… “Evolution is a fact!” is the rallying cry of many evolutionists as they try to push their naturalistic, anti-God religion on people. [Instead of Hambo’s supernaturalistic anti-reality religion.] But this dogmatic assertion is a gross misrepresentation of the nature of evolution.

If you haven’t seen it, take a look at Evolution as Fact and Theory by Stephen Jay Gould. Hambo’s rant continues:

As I have pointed out over and over again [ad nauseam], evolution is said to have happened in the past, but consequently cannot be tested, repeated, or observed. You can’t “prove” evolution because you weren’t there in the past to observe it!

We warned you this was bad. Let’s read on:

As I pointed out during my debate with Bill Nye “the Science Guy” this past February [in what the rational world calls Hambo’s Drool-a-thon], it’s a common tactic of evolutionists to “bait and switch.” They demonstrate change within a kind (which no rational person denies) and then call these minor changes molecules-to-man evolution. But they are not the same thing! [Only Hambo uses that “molecules-to-man” phrase.]

He continues:

What is termed “natural selection” works on existing information [like the available mutations] but has never — not even once — been demonstrated to add new functional information to the genome. [Natural selection doesn’t create; it deletes unfavorable mutations from the gene pool.] Instead, natural selection usually leads to a decrease of information (or conservation of — or new — combinations of previously existing information). [Somewhat true, but misleading in context.]

Here’s more:

But evolution absolutely requires an addition of brand-new information into the genome. After all, you can’t change a fish into an amphibian without new functional information! Yet no known mechanism can provide this essential new information. [Hambo either never heard of, or denies the existence of mutations, including gene duplications.]

Moving along:

Accepting biological evolution absolutely requires faith — blind faith [and only a fool accepts things on faith]. You must have faith that somehow by an unknown process that has never been seen to occur, life came from non-life — even though in all observed cases, life only comes from other life (as the accepted law of biogenesis demonstrates). [Yeah, accepted law.]

Another excerpt:

Now, unlike the blind faith of evolutionists, we have a reliable, eyewitness account from someone who was there and who doesn’t lie. [But there’s no blind faith involved in that.] We know that we have the correct history of Earth and life because God’s Word has clearly revealed to us what the Creator did.

On with the article:

Scientific discoveries — when properly interpreted through the lens of God’s Word [divine peer review] — support the Bible’s account of history, which gives the origin of life and information. And observational science in genetics (as well as in other fields, like geology and astronomy) overwhelmingly confirms the Bible’s account of history. [Take a break, empty the barf bucket, and set it up again. You’ll need it.]

And now we come to our final excerpt:

Why will secular evolutionists not admit that what they believe concerning origins is by faith (albeit a blind faith)? It’s because ultimately this is a spiritual issue. The secularists are in rebellion against God and don’t want to acknowledge they have adopted a religion to justify their unbelief.

The absolutely amazing thing is that Hambo makes a good living saying things like that. People are willing to pay for it. Scary, isn’t it?

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

26 responses to “An Ark-Load of Trash from Ken Ham

  1. michaelfugate

    Just the other day Carl Zimmer put up a post about where new genes come from……

  2. Hambo and his carnival of kooks, aka creation “scientists” are merely intellectually lazy carnival barkers, and nothing more. His rant here is just vintage Hambo lying to his drooling audience fresh in from their bit parts on the “Little House on the Prairie” set. Hambo may or may not be aware enough of the real world to know what a buffoon he is.
    However, he does have a talent for fleecing his credulous flock.

  3. How many people in the general public, even among those who accept evolution, think that evolution is only about the distant past and that the primary evidence is fossils?

  4. Has Kenny actually read the bible? Or just the first chapter and thought, ouch my brain hurts from all this science?

  5. Kanny Humbug confabulates cretinist cognitive compote—

    “The secularists are in rebellion against God and don’t want to acknowledge they have adopted a religion to justify their unbelief.”

    Yeah, that explains the amazing convergence of multiple lines of evidence on essentially the same narrative. It explains why there are so many irreconcilably different flavours and factions and sects and cults and denominations to be found within evolutionary biology and related disciplines. It explains all the dogma and ritual and prayer that those scientists engage in as part of their duties. And not least, it explains all the bloody inter-denominational rivalries and violent frictions that so regularly bedevil scientific progress.

    Jeez Louise, you just couldn’t make this [edited out] up, even on a bad acid trip. Methinks Kanny Humbug has just come a cropper off the bottom rung — and it’s only he who hasn’t yet realised it.

  6. Jason: “Has Kenny actually read the bible?”

    Probably cover-to-cover 1000 times. But these people read the Bible the same way they read a science book, to pick and choose the parts that feel good, and to pretend that all the rest doesn’t exist. And when words have multiple definitions, to use only the ones that suit the argument.

  7. Cin-Tester: “Yeah, that explains the amazing convergence of multiple lines of evidence on essentially the same narrative.”

    You are practically quoting that radical “Darwinist” who made such a statement endorsing evolution. His name was Karol Wojtyla, but we know him better as Pope John Paul II.

  8. Without getting political, yet acknowledging how politically motivated our world is, Hambo seems to be following the trend. There is no need to pretend that you’re not blatantly creationally and Gawd Bawmb crazy…….and get progressively worse at it. As long as you hold to Jeebus and Goddidit in there somewhere you must be Ok by American standards. At least as long as you don’t go against our founding Christian Father’s Principles that is.(DOH!!!!) Oh yes and let us not forget the Panda Book as a Science Text. All set.

  9. Too subtle…..should have just outright said how much worse I’ve noticed political figures and commentators becoming over the last 15 years. Especially concerning how science can’t answer every question.

  10. In future, when you advise the use of a barf bucket, could you maybe suggest a barf bath? My bucket was somewhat overwhelmed, and now I’ve got a hell of a mess to clear up. Cheers.

  11. @Con-Tester called our attention to:
    adopted a religion to justify
    I assume that the audience were of the sort which claim not to have a religion, but are Christians, for these words reflect a recognition of what was said by Lucretius, Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum “religion can justify such evil”.

  12. I’m always intrigued when someone tries to lump science / secularism / atheism in the same pot with religion. Even disregarding the gaping divide in epistemological approach that separates the two categories, this tactic smacks pungently of tu quoque banality. It’s as if the speaker/writer is saying, “Yes, I admit my claims lack persuasiveness, but so do yours,” with the unstated implication that this concession, even if true, somehow makes each set of claims more or less equally plausible.

    The manifest absurdity is that at bottom it’s nothing less than a retreat into postmodern relativism, which fatally confronts the ideas of “revealed knowledge” (or any other knowledge, for that matter) and the faith in its absoluteness that attends it. The tactic is, in short, an overtly self-defeating one.

  13. It sounds like Hambo is parroting his “hired gun” Ph.D Georgia Purdum who reconciles observable evolution with the Bible with the notion that evolution is subtractive from God’s original perfect design. I’d say she isn’t looking hard enough. Here is a great article about some of the evolution of plants. While polyploidy isn’t applicable to many modern animals, polyploidy no doubt had a bigger role in animal evolution in the past.

  14. So, lying liar tells lies. It would be an interesting development if they just once had evidence to support the assertions.

  15. @Con-Tester
    The tactic is, in short, an overtly self-defeating one.

    There is something about creationism which attracts self-defeating arguments.
    Is it just that I am more familiar with creationism, rather than other (ahem) unconventional ideas? But I can’t imagine an astrologer making a point how there is no way that the positions of the stars can affect me and that being a reason to believe in astrology.
    It is something of a signature of creationism.
    Along with it being vacuous … and let me stop before Monte Python appears (one never expects Monte Python).

  16. michaelfugate

    That does seem to have been their one main argument running from the first court cases – creationism is science, but even if it isn’t, then neither is evolution. It is saying that if creationism is science then it should be included in science classes, but if it isn’t science then evolution automatically isn’t science either. If evolution is taught in science classes and it isn’t science, then creationism which also isn’t science should be taught in science classes. A bizarro strategy.

  17. @michaelfugate
    You almost make it comprehensible. Sort of like the Chewbacca defense

  18. Oh Hambo essentially says evilution is bad and can only be believed on faith, so his gawd is believed on faith so doing so is bad. My irony meter will never be the same.
    Also take his article and replace evilution with creationism and you can say exactly the same things about his BS beliefs.
    Sorry heading for the bucket.

  19. Has Kenny actually read the bible?

    I doubt kennie has really read the Bible, he acts more like he wrote it, or at least we wrote the cliff-notes to explain it to other people.. If you ever lose a bet and have to visit the creation ‘museum’, be prepared to see so many ‘interpretations’ of the Bible that you wonder how he can claim Biblical innerrancy with a straight face.

  20. I think it is official that he realizes that he is running a scam. There can be no doubt that he is a liar for Jesus. Though I suppose that it could be he is just desperate to believe he didn’t waste his life and doesn’t know what to do. No excuse though.

  21. That was supposed to be “can be no doubt.” Can someone fix that?

    [*Voice from above*] It’s disrespectful to speak of me as merely “someone.”

  22. @Justin
    “His Eminence” is the short form, in informal correspondence. The long form, including all the grand dukedoms, principalities, medals, academies, degrees, etc. etc. well, it is too long to reproduce here.

    Seriously, thanks are due for the invisible as well as the obvious work being done here.

  23. My own take on the Ham piece – written at 23.22 British Summer Time on 9 October and before seeing the above blog and comments – can be seen here:

  24. All glory to His Eminence!

  25. Con-Tester: “It’s as if the speaker/writer is saying, ‘Yes, I admit my claims lack persuasiveness, but so do yours,’ with the unstated implication that this concession, even if true, somehow makes each set of claims more or less equally plausible.”

    (spelling your name right this time). You might notice how they use that as a “Plan B” when they sense that “Plan A” – “mine is the better ‘theory'” is not convincing the audience at hand. A related tactic is “they both take faith.” It’s really fun when they pretend to advocate ID but not creationism. Then you can ask, “So do you think that creationism is weaker than evolution and ID?” and watch them play even more evasive word games.