Ken Ham Denies Being a Science Denier

There’s got to be a name for what’s going on here, but we can’t think of it. We’re talking about the double-denial syndrome exhibited in the latest post 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 infamous, mind-boggling Creation Museum.

Ol’ Hambo has made a career out of denying science — all of it: biology (he says evolution is a lie), geology (he’s a young-Earther), astronomy (he denies that anything in the universe is older than 6,000 years), and nuclear physics (he denies radiometric dating techniques). He denies any aspect of science that he doesn’t like, and he replaces it with the laughable fantasy of “creation science.” What’s that? See The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Creation Science.

This is the new post by Hambo that has us so amused. Just the title is amazing — Creationists Don’t Deny Science! You gotta love it — the science denier denies that he’s a denier. Here’s what he says, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Probably the most common claim I hear from our critcs [sic] is that “creationists deny science.” And no matter how many times we address this false notion, the media and secularist groups still spread that myth around. … But this is absolutely not true!

He then complains about a blog article by Karl Giberson which says (and we haven’t checked the quote):

Science denialism is alive in the United States and 2014 was yet another blockbuster year for preposterous claims from America’s flakerrati. To celebrate the year, here are the top 10 anti-science salvos of 2014.

“America’s flakerrati.” That’s good, but Hambo doesn’t like it. He says:

He [Giberson] then proceeds to list AiG as number one and even calls me “America’s leading science denialist.” But do creationists deny science? Of course not!

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Of course not! He then repeats his mumbo-jumbo about observational science (which he tolerates) and historical science (which he hates because it contradicts Genesis). We’ve written about this numerous times, and it’s discussed in our Guide to Creation Science to which we previously linked. You might also want to look at this: Creationism and Science. We don’t need to go through all that again. Does Hambo have anything else to say? Let’s read on:

If you start with man’s word, then you will interpret the evidence of the present through the lens of millions of years of naturalistic processes. But if you start with God’s Word — which was written by the only One who was actually there through history! — you will interpret the evidence of the present through the lens of a universe brought into existence by an all powerful God, a perfect world marred by sin, and young earth that was drastically changed by a global Flood a few thousand years ago. The evidence is the same — you just interpret it differently depending on your starting point!

[*Curmudgeon thoughtfully pauses while you dash to the bathroom to be purged at both ends*] Feel better? Okay, we’ll continue:

Most secularists, however, refuse to recognize the obvious difference between these two kinds of science. Instead, they call both observational science and their view of origins — molecules-to-man evolution — science, without any distinction between the two, and then claim that, because we reject their view of origins, we reject science.

Yes, Hambo, you do reject science! Here’s Hambo’s brilliant response to that:

They say this because they don’t want to admit they actually hold beliefs — a religion! Their religion is naturalism. Creationists don’t reject observational science — we love science!

[*Curmudgeon pauses again, because he knows you need to re-purge*] Here’s more:

So when people claim that creationists deny science, what they’ve done is a bait-and-switch. They call their religion of naturalism and the observational evidence both “science” and then, because creationists reject their religion, they claim that we reject science!

Then he dribbles off into a sales pitch for creationist books. So there you are. Hey — it wasn’t a total waste. (That’s a pun, related to all those trips to the john.) And so we take our leave of ol’ Hambo — the science denier who’s in denial about his denial.

Copyright © 2015. 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

24 responses to “Ken Ham Denies Being a Science Denier

  1. What was the little rock saying?
    Ham says the statement on the other side of this rock is a lie.
    Turn the rock over.
    Ham says the statement on the other side of this rock is true.

  2. Charles Deetz ;)

    Denial denial is a symptom of cognitive dissonance. He’s been lying about ‘the evidence’ so long he thinks it is science.

    Starlight Hambo, it’s more than 6,000 years old … observationally. Science has an answer, He has ‘god created light’ that needs Hambo’s interpretation to explain the ‘eyewitness’ story, otherwise it is weird to have light before there were light sources. What a sham he is!

  3. It seems that Hambo never has anything new to say so every now and then he has to fill up a page in his blog with the same old stupidity: creationists like science, there are two kinds of science, all science is based on worldviews, naturalism is a religion, all evidence is interpreted based on religious beliefs, man’s word against god’s word and on and on ad nauseum.

    In a world where new scientific discoveries make YEC look ridiculous on a daily basis, he probably feels the need to give a pep talk to the flock on a regular basis so they will continue to believe AIG lies about scientific topics.

  4. Does mean that he feels defensive about being a science denier?

  5. What has changed is that Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson have gone on the offensive and not offensively (think Dawkins).

    Nye was on Science Friday today and laid out a strategy, including his new book, that he’s going to be pushing. Nye said that as a science educator he had failed if such a large percentage of Americans believe the Earth is 10,000 years or so old, and that man was created in his current form around the same time.

    So, he’s out to do something about it and that’s to promote science, not denigrate religion, but be firm in telling people that if you believe in a young earth you’re flat out wrong.

    Nye is coming down on the Dawkins side of accomodationalism, but not as far as take-no-prisoners Dawkins, but far less accommodationalist than Uncle Karl. (who has probably moved very much closer to the Dawkins side of the spectrum, too.)

    Nye is directly confronting Hambo who has enjoyed and profited by the fruits of accommodationalism for so many years. It’s not even an “agree to disagree” proposition. Nye is telling Hambo and his supporters they are flat out wrong. Thus, Nye is directly eroding Hambo’s financial base.

    Finally, it’s been a common ploy, especially by the Dishonesty Institute to claim they want “more science” in the classroom and they advocate “more science” for everybody. Of course, that’s a big fat lie.

  6. On a related matter, I wonder if the astute and handsome Curmudgeon had noticed the article of January 6 on the Evolution News website regarding Barnes and Noble’s perverse insistence on shelving “Darwin’s Doubt” in the Christian literature, rather than Science, section of the store.

  7. I don’t understand how accommodationalism has benefited YEC.

  8. Considering Hambo has a statement of faith that mentions several aspects of the physical world he must be a science denier.
    For example (from Hambo’s statement of faith) Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since creation.
    Even if science hadn’t found such changes (Hambo would say they would be historical science) It is absurd (and denial of science) to say that science can’t find such changes in the future.

  9. Our Curmudgeon ponders:

    There’s got to be a name for what’s going on here, but we can’t think of it. We’re talking about the double-denial syndrome exhibited in the latest post from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo)

    Sounds like a mini ‘Curmudgeon Creative Challenge’ to me.

    So kick things off, how about

    Compound Chicanery

  10. Richard Bond

    Let’s play Ham’s little game:

    1) Historical science: work out that 380 Mya Ellesmere Island was a swamp in the tropics and home to transitional fish/amphibians.
    2) Observational science: dig up Tiktaalik.

    Hint to Hambo: look up “corroboration” in a dictionary.

  11. 2014: Revenge of the Creationists

    a href=”http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrBT9tICbFUQtkAfV1XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzNHByYWQ5BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDI4MV8x/RV=2/RE=1420917192/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.thedailybeast.com%2farticles%2f2014%2f12%2f27%2f2014-revenge-of-the-creationists.html/RK=0/RS=PArgh8RuoGErcRXGedQ_zJrlLtM-“>

    Here’s a link to the Karl Giberson blog post (at The Daily Beast) that’s got Ham so upset. (Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute is at #2)

    And you don’t need to go far to find Ham’s science denialism; this part of AIG’s “Statement Of Faith”;

    By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

    Is (by definition) a denial of the very essence of science.

    [*Voice from above*] Sorry, but I sensed a disturbance in the Force.

  12. Messed up link above (sorry, SC)- try here.

  13. (1)By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.
    (2)Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since creation.

    (a) According to (1), the Earth is fixed and the Sun moves around it, despite whatever evidence to the contrary.

    (b) Meanwhile, there is nothing in the Bible about limits to changes within kinds (2).

    Yes, they deny the clear consensus of science according to their whim.

    This is making stuff up without regard to what is in the Bible. Denying what is in the Bible. Speaking where the Bible is silent. It is compounding the offense by arrogating to themselves the authority of God.

  14. Roy Tressler

    I did not watch the Nye-Ham “debate”, but i read that, at the end, the two responded to questions from the audience. Ironically, the last question asked had to do with their willingness to change their beliefs if they were confronted with evidence that refuted their beliefs. Nye, the scientist, responded affirmatively, while Ham, the true believer, responded negatively. From his own mouth comes his denial of science. BTW, denial of denial is a delusion.

  15. OK, Mr Hambone! Creation science is real NOW…show me ONE thing that ‘creation science ‘ has given to humanity that is worth more then the Bull crap you spread. Something like Oh we will make it simple…a printing press …run not on electricity but run by gawd power!!! Waiting. Still Waiting.

  16. Creationists don’t want to deny science. They just want to redefine it so that it embraces “supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.” (or as the Curmudgeon likes to say, “Oogity-Boogity!”)

    This gambit was actually tried, at the state level, in Kansas some time back. It flopped, which means some evolved (sorry, couldn’t resist) version of it will pop up elsewhere, if it hasn’t already.

  17. Roy Tressler says: “BTW, denial of denial is a delusion.”

    Apparently so. Wikipedia has a few brief words about it: Denial of denial.

  18. Even according to his own definition Ol’ Hambo is a science denier.
    Advise: don’t clickk – I’ll quote.

    https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/two-kinds-of-science/

    “… there are two main types of scientific research—operational and historical …”

    https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/what-is-science/

    “Operational (Observational) Science: a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves.”
    Radiometry totally consists of observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable experimentation. Still Ol’ Hambo rejects it the moment he says the Earth is 6 000 years old.

    https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-back-to-basics/

    “wrong assumptions lead to incorrect dates”
    Radiometry is “wrong” – “incorrect” –> denial.

  19. In case anyone was in doubt before, Hambone continues to demonstrate that he neither knows nor understands anything about science.

  20. BTW Ken Ham doesn’t just ask for money or prayers, he also wants people to fast at least once a month. See https://answersingenesis.org/prayer/ and https://answersingenesis.org/christianity/christian-life/definition-of-fasting/ What a control freak! How often does Ham fast, I wonder?

  21. Charles Deetz ;)

    @Ted What next, will be asking them to be castrated?

  22. The more Ken Ham does his denial dance, the more he confirms to the world that he is simply another crank, not to be taken seriously.

  23. Just caught up with this after expressing my own views online at an open forum where even YECs are free to post. Which are, in short, ‘Oh Yes They Do’:
    http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&start=1605

  24. Ted asks—

    “How often does Ham fast, I wonder?”

    Continuously, I’d hazard. He simply refuses to ingest anything enlightened. One might even say he’s suffering from a form of intellectual bulimia but without the binges.