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.