Ken Ham Spews the Usual Nonsense

Night was dark

Three weeks ago, the New York Times carried an article by David Barash, a biology professor, about an introductory lecture he gives to his students: God, Darwin and My College Biology Class. He begins with this:

It’s irresponsible to teach biology without evolution, and yet many students worry about reconciling their beliefs with evolutionary science. Just as many Americans don’t grasp the fact that evolution is not merely a “theory,” but the underpinning of all biological science, a substantial minority of my students are troubled to discover that their beliefs conflict with the course material.

So he gives them what he calls “The Talk.” We didn’t blog about it because we rarely write about articles with which we agree. It’s much more fun to wait for the creationist reactions. But even when the Discoveroids posted their predictable response (At U. of Washington, Evangelizing Atheist David Barash Illustrates How the Scientific “Consensus” on Darwinism Is Maintained), we still ignored it.

We shall ignore it no longer. Today we have a reaction from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia, famed for his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG) and for the mind-boggling Creation Museum.

Ol’ Hambo’s article is Evolutionary Biologist Gets It Right (Sort of). Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

For years evolutionists have been repeating the famous mantra of “nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution” in one form or another. Evolutionary biologist David P. Barash is the latest to make statements of this kind.

Hambo quotes Barash a bit and then he says:

Now, something that Dr. Barash fails to mention in his article is that naturalistic evolution actually goes against a principal law of biology: the Law of Biogenesis.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! A biology professor is ignoring a basic law of biology! Well, actually not, because there is no such law. The irony here is that creationism recognizes no laws of nature, because The Man Upstairs can whimsically suspend them whenever a miracle is desired.

Yet creationists make a big point of defending the utterly fictitious Law of Biogenesis. That “law” is such a false, rotting, putrid clunker it’s amazing that anyone bothers with it. TalkOrigins mentions it in their Index to Creationist Claims, but they give it only a couple of sentences: Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous generation and established the “law of biogenesis”. We have a brief section on it in our Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Let’s read on:

The biblical worldview doesn’t have this problem; the Law of Biogenesis is never violated because all life, including the original creatures God made to inhabit the earth, comes from the Life-giver, our Creator.

See? There are no rules whatsoever in creationism. Well, there is one rule: Thou shalt ignore reality! Hambo continues:

Also, when we look at nature we see animals reproducing according to their kinds. Dogs give birth to dogs, bats give birth to bats, and whales give birth to whales. However, biological evolution requires that one kind of creature gives rise to another — something that has never been observed. So evolution is actually going against observational science!

Jeepers, he’s right! No one has ever seen a squirrel give birth to a hippopotamus. Here’s more:

The observable evidence confirms biblical creation. Evolution is not fundamental to biology but, rather, goes against the evidence we see in nature.

No comment. Moving along:

Barash then states, “Although the natural world can be marvelous, it is also filled with ethical horrors: predation, parasitism, fratricide, infanticide, disease, pain, old age and death — and that suffering (like joy) is built into the nature of things.” He argues that evolution destroys the idea of a “benevolent, controlling creator.”

Here’s Hambo’s response to that:

I would certainly agree with him! If you believe that God used evolution to create, what you are really saying is that our all-wise, all-loving Creator used a wasteful process of death, suffering, and extinction to create life. This provides no answer to the question, Why is there death and suffering?

Suffering and evil is an ancient theological (not biological) problem, but Hambo has an answer — it’s because of Adam & Eve and their original sin.

Ol’ Hambo goes on a bit longer, then he wraps it up by urging his readers to pray for the professor, and he finishes with a pitch for the books and videos AIG has for sale. Hambo seems to have one constant operational imperative: Any pro-evolution article in the media is an opportunity to sell AIG’s merchandise. That ol’ Hambo is a smart man!

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

49 responses to “Ken Ham Spews the Usual Nonsense

  1. Now, something that Dr. Barash fails to mention in his article is that naturalistic evolution actually goes against a principal law of biology: the Law of Biogenesis.

    Actually, the principle of biogenesis is pretty well established, but it has been understood all along that there must have been some point in time at which life arose from non life. Even creationists admit that much, imagining the Almighty fashioning living things from “the dust of the ground.” Scientists formulated the principle in response to experimental falsification of earlier beliefs that complex organisms could arise directly from inert matter: flies from rotten meat, for example.

    If you believe that God used evolution to create, what you are really saying is that our all-wise, all-loving Creator used a wasteful process of death, suffering, and extinction to create life. This provides no answer to the question, Why is there death and suffering?

    And creationism provides no answer to the question, either, at least as regards other species. Why should the entire natural world be punished because of “Adam & Eve and their original sin”?

  2. So, Ham knows more about biology than a man who holds a doctorate in biology? Not in the real world he doesn’t.

  3. Mike Elzinga

    There is only one fundamental rule in all of ID/creationism; and it was formally implemented by Henry Morris – Ham’s mentor – at Morris’s founding of Institute for Creation “Research” back in 1970. It has since been inherited genetically by every spin-off of “Scientific” Creationism as Morris’s program kept failing in the courts.

    The fundamental rule is the following: If an ID/creationist purports to explain to anyone any scientific concept or scientific evidence, then that explanation will ALWAYS be wrong.

    The rule is intended to drag “debates” onto the territory of the ID/creationist and cause their opponents to “debate” using all the misinformation and misrepresentations of the ID/creationists.

    By studying, rather than debating, such idiocy as Ham’s notions of biology, – or Jason Lisle’s notions of relativity – one comes to understand just how deep and thick the drool really is. It’s mind-numbing; which is apparently its purpose.

  4. The night was dark,
    The drool was deep,
    And brave Curmudgeon
    Could not sleep.

    So many fools,
    So little time,
    Thick drool from the
    Primordial slime.

    He fell into
    A fitful doze
    As stagnant waters
    Lapped his toes.

    He saw Ken Ham
    Rise from the muck
    Astride a quacking
    Crocoduck.

    Can any idle lit majors wrap this up?

  5. Very nice, Jill Smith.

  6. Mike Elzinga

    The Ham was draped in unctuous ooze,
    Asserting “facts” as if on booze.
    “I beat Bill Nye the Science Guy!
    With Gen. 1:1, I cannot lose!”

    “I leveraged fame from Bill Nye’s snark;
    I now can build my famous big ark,
    With cheap land here and tax breaks there,
    And hiring practices in the dark.”

  7. I was sufficiently amused by the “a principal law of biology: the Law of Biogenesis” remark that I was tempted to go leave a rebutting comment on the sHam’s page.

    Oops, yes: no comments allowed there. I guess it’s in case people contradict the Voice of the Lord.

  8. At least, they can point to experimental evidence for the “law of biogenesis”.

    Back in the 18th century, there was debate about
    1) anomalous generation: living things appearing from non-living, or spontaneous generation. The creation week, with living things appearing from the waters and land is Biblical example.
    2) equivocal generation: living things appearing from different kinds of living things. Metamorphosis would be one case. The bees appearing from the lion’s carcass in the story of Samson is a Biblical example.
    3) univocal generation, the ordinary case. Preformation in the 18th century took this to mean the pre-existence of all living things. Think of homunculus.

    Anyway, at least they have experimental evidence. which is lacking from the counter-claim, that living things can be generated by intelligent design.
    Experimental evidence, by the way, is lacking for that other famous law,
    the “Law of Conservation of Information”.

  9. So because Adam and Eve made a mistake this happens (warning: only click if you have a strong stomach).

    So much for divine justice.

  10. Charles Deetz ;)

    Why is there suffering is one of the classic theological questions everyone asks. That Hammy can prop up a (to him) solid answer that fully justifies it, is arguably worse theologically, morally, and honesty than all his creationism bunk.

    I dare him to look my son in the eye and explain his bible-based reason why he has the chronic disease he has. But I take that back, he would do it because he is a heartless liar for god.

  11. he is a heartless liar for god

    I’d agree with that.

  12. When Hambo is drooling out his creationist blather on camera, focus on his eyes. His mouth is moving, but his eyes seem blank . . . as if there’s nobody home. Odd, really, but not surprising.

  13. Evolution has never happened.
    Evolutionary ideology is a pile of delusions.
    And it is not any science.

  14. Eric Lipps says

    And creationism provides no answer to the question [“Why is there death and suffering?”], either, at least as regards other species. Why should the entire natural world be punished because of “Adam & Eve and their original sin”?

    Actually, creationists do have an answer for this- “man is god’s special creation.” The thing is, this answer is really only an ultimate, all-purpose special-pleading premise without which nothing else in their “science” makes sense. And even the IDers whose “science” is putatively not religion need it- there’s no difference, in principle, between a lion being designed and a man being designed. There’s nothing in “creation” or “design” that necessarily implies anything special about the man unless he’s the center of the whole thing; certainly no afterlife for him is, by definition, a part of “design.” Their own frequent arguments from analogy- “airplanes,” “watches,” or what have you- could even be used against them here- what watchmaker ever designed a watch that could tick forever? If IDers want to claim design by comparison, they have to accept the limits of the comparison- if they want more, they need to admit to the special pleading of religion.

  15. @Anonymous
    Remember that evolution is not something that happened only in the past.

    Evolution happens.

  16. Dave Luckett

    Once upon a midnight drooly
    As I netsurfed, mind unruly,
    Over many a brain-bereft assertion of Hambonic lore.
    While I read, and nearly chundered,
    (That means barfed) as Hambo thundered,
    This occurred to me: I wondered
    Who the hell can this be for?

    Who the hell can he be fooling?
    Who has money, when they’re drooling?
    Who’s this stupid, yet who has the funds? Why wouldn’t they be poor?
    Who provides him with his traffic?
    What could be his demographic?
    Money doesn’t rain from realms seraphic,
    And Kenny-boy knows that for sure.

    But the dopes provide an income
    Meeting all his needs, and then some,
    Dimes and nickels, sure, but every thin one adds another to the score.
    Multiply it by the number
    Of rubes this dumb, or even dumber
    Pretty soon you got a summer
    Residence down by the shore.

    So repeat your stupid slogans:
    “Life from life alone”, while bogans
    (That means hicks) go uhn-hunh, more and more and more and more.
    “All them fancy-pants perfessers
    Don’t know nothing! It’s all guesses!
    Genesis alone impresses
    Anyone who knows the score!”
    Hambo surely knows the score.

  17. TomS

    Evolution happens.

    Yes, Evolution can’t be just observed anywhere.
    Evolution happens only in fertile imagination of evolutionists.

    😀

  18. Ultimately, Ham believes in a deceptive and cruel god. Deceptive, because no matter how Ham spins it, all the evidence points to an ancient earth with a long history of life, so Ham’s god is responsible for that false evidence. Ham’s god is cruel because – well, read the old testament.

    It seems possible to me that a religious person could accept the scientific understanding of the universe and evolution and also believe in an ineffable god who watches over humans. Such a person could at least claim that their god is honest and good, as opposed to the god of Ham, Hovind, and the rest of his ilk.

  19. “Precise dating methods of evolutionists”

    Sometimes we give radiocarbon dating extravaganza numbers. In the scientific journal Science (sv. 141, 18 8th, 1963, p. 634-637) was documented as radiocarbon method for determining the age of one shellfish for 2300 years. Determining had only one small mistake in the ointment: the animal was still alive!

    😀

  20. An anonymous poster has left a little puddle of drool above.

  21. One of the features of Gnosticism, which has been called the oldest heresy of Christianity, is that the material world is the work of the Demiurge, which is identified with the God of the Old Testament in being deceptive and cruel.

  22. Excellent, Dave Luckett!

  23. waldteufel observes: “An anonymous poster has left a little puddle of drool above.”

    Yes, that’s fromczech. I’ve got his comments on moderation, but I just let a couple through. When y’all get tired of playing with him, I’ll pull the plug.

  24. Evolution happens only in fertile imagination of evolutionists.

    Well, there certainly ain’t any evolution going on in the minds of creationists.

  25. There are plenty of creationists who insist that they accept evolution.
    For one thing, it helps, so they think, with one problem with Noah’s Ark.
    See “baramin”.
    See “arguments creationists shouldn’t use” in AiG.
    Some of the ID folks realize that they have to accept some evolution.
    etc.

  26. The Curmudgeon:

    Yes, that’s fromczech. I’ve got his comments on moderation, but I just let a couple through. When y’all get tired of playing with him, I’ll pull the plug.

    Yes, This is the example of “clear, scientific” objectivity.
    Long live the great Darwin !!
    😉

  27. When you apply “clear, scientific” objectivity.” to your creationism there is nothing there. No gods, no special creation of man nor any evidence for dust to man magic.

    Got any evidence? I thought not.

  28. fromczech describes an example of the reservoir effect, known to researchers for sixty years or more.

    C-14 radioisotope dating is based on the assumption that the sample was grown using carbon that had been freely exchanged with atmospheric carbon, which has a fairly constant (not perfectly constant) ratio of C-14 from atmospheric CO2. This assumption is not good in the case of shellfish, crustacea, pond snails, tissue in crab seals, and similar cases where the carbon in the shells or other tissue comes from CaCO3 – calcium carbonate – dissolved in the water the animal lives in, or from food that the animal ate with the same source. This carbon has been in the environment without exchange with the atmosphere for, probably, thousands of years. The proportion of C-14 in it is therefore much reduced, giving much older dates,

    This effect was first described in 1948, I believe. Researchers using carbon-dating are well aware of it, and are careful to use samples of tissues known to have been formed in animals and plants that lived freely exchanging the carbon in their bodies with the atmosphere.

    This is news so old it’s got barnacles of its own. I wonder what dates I’d get from C-14 dating them?

  29. Charles Deetz ;)

    Puddles of drool circa 1963. Is a scientific error in dating is the best attack on evolution and science? Science was wrong once in one data collection point, therefor you shouldn’t trust it again?

    The Bible forgot to mention the creation of bacteria and protists, two of the five kingdoms of life. That’s a bit bigger problem to deal with. Hambo has to mambo around that one even.

  30. Hey, Fromczech, to amuse us a bit more I hope our dear SC permits you to anser these two questions:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/the-two-questions/

    Question #1: What evidence would falsify your chosen variety of creationism?
    Question #2: What evidence would you accept as provisional proof of evolution?

    I can answer them regarding Evolution Theory. A Cambrian rabbit would falsify it. A crocoduck would be good provisional evidence for a creator.

  31. A fairytale about evolution

    Once upon a time, when evolution was in full action (“yet”),

    Whales lived on mountains!

    Good night, dear children…

    (and Do not forget: Universal flood wasn’t!)

    Your “scientists”…

    😀

  32. Apparently, fromczech rides his little tricycle around drooling on a flat earth as he gazes in wonder at that big ball of glowing gas that circles the earth once a day. A tiresome, know-nothing troll who is, frankly, boring.

  33. Charles Deetz:

    Question #1: What evidence would falsify your chosen variety of creationism?

    I will speak for myself :

    For example:

    Space probe lands on the moon Europa, drilling through the ice and under it we find live fish.
    J)

    Question #2: What evidence would you accept as provisional proof of evolution?

    As with the first question.

    A Cambrian rabbit would falsify it.

    Evolutionary ideology is irrefutable, because rabbits don’t usually live on the seabed. 😀

  34. SnowinScotland

    fromczech “Evolutionary ideology is irrefutable, because rabbits don’t usually live on the seabed”

    I guess you mean unlike the dinosaurs that lived on the seabed?

  35. Fromczech, I’m wondering about that article you link to – in addition to the whale fossil, that same series of papers notes various sediments that typically occur underwater, bits and bobs of undersea life and a general tableau of, “Hey, look, the Andes really WERE underwater at some point,” which is something that’s been theorized for some time (and for which there’s some further evidence).

    So, I wonder why you posted that up as just “Whales lived on mountains,” because that’s an oversimplification and isn’t actually what the article says. In fact, the title you give the article can really only mean that you’re either ignoring evidence, or you’re lying about it. Which is it, or do you have a third explanation?

  36. fromczech, I fully realize the futility of writing this to you, but could you please cite your evidence for saying there is no evolution?

  37. Still waiting for the evidence for creationism, uncashedczech.
    Jim, what do you expect from a creationist? Honesty?
    This troll hasn’t read the article he/she linked to just like the bible he/she won’t have read either.

  38. retiredsciguy

    I fully realize the futility of writing this to you, but could you please cite your evidence for saying there is no evolution?

    Evolutionists seem stupid “God created Earth, life and people”

    I seem comic the idea that people (man and woman) arose from
    THIS MATERIAL ,
    because breeze was blowing and sun was shining million years. 😀

    You should to show these “constructive forces” in action.
    Burden of proof is on your side.
    😉

  39. @Adrian
    Still waiting for the evidence for creationism, uncashedczech.

    If he’s in the Czech Republic (which would be my guess, from the English use), I’d imagine he’ll be tucked up in his little beddy-bye by now.

  40. Dave Luckett, you are brilliant. Are you married? Would you like to be? And if so, do you like blonde former English teachers? Bravo.

  41. “God created Earth, life and people”
    If God created people, does that mean that it is wrong to believe in the scientific explanation for human reproduction?

  42. TomS:

    If God created people, does that mean that it is wrong to believe in the scientific explanation for human reproduction?

    No, human reproduction was also created by God (Gn 1:28) but any reproduction didn’t arise from wet stones.

  43. “Evolutionists seem stupid.” I just learned more about you than I wanted to know.

  44. Time to drop ‘fromczech.’ His ignorance has provided enough playtime.

  45. michaelfugate

    “God created Earth, life and people”

    So people aren’t alive?

  46. You’re right, Victor. He’s gone.

  47. SC: Good call. Like so many creationists, he confuses the origin of life with evolution, the origin of species. He deserved being made a cancelled Czech.

    Besides, he’s too lazy to even read up on the subject to discover for himself the vast amount of evidence supporting evolution. And because of the internet, it wouldn’t even require a trip to the library.

  48. confuses the origin of life with evolution, the origin of species.
    And many confuse the individual with the species – the fallacies of composition and division.

  49. Adrian, what persuaded me from creationism to recognizing evolution’s role in the development of life was not persuasive argumentation, but rather the realization that I was lying, actively lying, in the name of God. I know I’m not the only creationist who’s come out of that way of thinking because of this.