Ken Ham: Evolution Is Worthless

The latest blog post from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) will be difficult for us to write about, for reasons which will become apparent. As you know, ol’ Hambo is the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia. He’s famed for his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG) and for the mind-boggling Creation Museum.

Ol’ Hambo just posted this on his blog: Is Evolution the Foundation of Biology? It’s rather long, and it includes several creationist arguments. We can’t possibly deal with all of it here, so we’ll have to skip around and omit quite a bit. Here’s how it starts, and the bold font was added by us:

One of the most-repeated evolutionary mantras is that supposedly “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” In a recent article, a biology professor (who is an ardent evolutionist) at the University of Kentucky, Dr. James Krupa, explains that he teaches his non-major undergrad biology students evolution “at the beginning of a course, and as a recurring theme throughout the semester” because “evolution is the foundation upon which all biology rests.”

Hambo is talking about this excellent article by Professor Kupra: Defending Darwin. It’s highly recommended. But Hambo doesn’t provide a link to it, presumably because he doesn’t want his drooling fans to be exposed to blasphemous material — especially from a professor in Kentucky. We imagine that when he first became aware of it, he got red in the face, flew into a rage, started foaming at the mouth, then fell to the floor and began chewing the carpet. Here’s what he says about it:

But is it really impossible to understand biology without understanding evolution? Well, the many PhD scientists who study biology but reject evolution — like [he mentions creationists on his staff] — would certainly disagree with this statement! You see, there are two different kinds of science: observational and historical science.

Aaaargh!! Okay, if Hambo can keep repeating himself, so can the Curmudgeon. We discussed that bogus dichotomy in The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Creation Science, and we have a section on it in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. See also: Creationism and Science, and also Ken Ham’s Historical vs. Observational Science. Okay, back to Hambo:

Most scientists engaged in observational science rarely reference or refer to evolutionary ideas.

Yeah, it probably doesn’t come up too often among those who work at the Large Hadron Collider. But if you walk into the biology department at any university — except at a bible college — things will be different. Let’s read on:

However, there are instances where beliefs about evolution have actually held observational science back. For example, since researchers assumed evolution happened, they assumed that our bodies would be full of junk and useless leftovers from our evolutionary past. So many evolutionists didn’t bother to investigate the purposes of seemingly useless organs and structures like the appendix or the coccyx. However, we now know that the organs and structures once labelled as vestigial have been found to have an important purpose.

Uh huh. And creationism never has a deleterious effect on science. But we’ll give Hambo credit for one thing — it’s true that creation science seems to be done with the coccyx. We continue:

Since my debate with Bill Nye “the Science Guy” in 2014, I’ve been challenging evolutionists to name one piece of technology that could only have been developed starting with a belief in molecules-to-man evolution, and they (even Bill Nye) still haven’t named one. And they won’t, because there aren’t any!

Jeepers — he’s right! None of our trips to the Moon were based on evolution. Of course, it’s also true that nothing in any science has ever been accomplished based on Genesis, but Hambo doesn’t bother with that. Here’s more:

Many well-meaning creationists will say “evolution is just a theory” when they are arguing with an evolutionist who presents evolution as a die-hard fact of nature. But, while well-intentioned, this is actually an argument that we think creationists shouldn’t use. You see, calling evolution a “theory” raises it to a level is really doesn’t deserve!

Wanna read more of that? You’ll have to click over there. We’ll skip it and move along to the next item:

Krupa [the University of Kentucky professor] states, “I continue to teach biology as I do, because biology makes sense only in the light of evolution.” But what has evolution really done to further our understanding of biology? According to evolutionary ideas about the past, life originated from non-life at some point in the past. However, evolutionists have no plausible mechanism for how this could happen. Everything we see in nature confirms the law of biogenesis — life only comes from other life. Life never comes from non-life.

Aaaargh!! Evolution isn’t about the origin of life, and there is no law of biogenesis — except in creationist literature. We have a brief section on it in our Common Creationist Claims Confuted. As for the chemical origin of life, there are numerous plausible mechanisms, but life hasn’t been created yet in the lab. When it happens, as it surely will, the creationists will be complaining that it was deliberately done, so that proves life requires a designer. Another excerpt:

Biology certainly makes sense without Darwin. Creationists were doing biology before Darwin, and creationists continue to do biology without Darwin today.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We’ll wrap it up with a teaser from near the end of Hambo’s essay:

Our ministry friend Ray Comfort recently received some encouraging feedback on Facebook, and he shared it with us. This brief story highlights how those blinded from the truth by evolutionary ideas can be shown the problems with evolution and be shown how biblical creation does explain the evidence, and then be pointed to the Creator, our Savior, Jesus Christ.

Ray Comfort? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! He’s best known for his starring role in Ray Comfort’s “Banana video”. Wanna read what Hambo says about him? You gotta click over there. We’re done.

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: Evolution Is Worthless

  1. I want to know what recreational drugs Hambo takes before he writes this nonsense up! No really, does anybody know?

  2. Lewis Thomasonn

    He inhales the holy smoke.

  3. michaelfugate

    From Krupa’s article

    Two days later, a student walked down to the lectern after class and informed me that I was wrong about Catholics. He said Baptists were the first Christians and that this is clearly explained in the Bible. His mother told him so. I asked where this was explained in the Bible. He glared at me and said, “John the Baptist, duh!” and then walked away.

    My Southern Baptist grandmother used that very same argument on me 30 years ago! Still wrong.

  4. Holding The Line In Florida

    Another day and another excuse to drink beer! Oh how I love this stuff! Hambo and Comfort together! Can it get any better?

  5. However, there are instances where beliefs about evolution have actually held observational science back. For example, since researchers assumed evolution happened, they assumed that our bodies would be full of junk and useless leftovers from our evolutionary past. So many evolutionists didn’t bother to investigate the purposes of seemingly useless organs and structures like the appendix or the coccyx. However, we now know that the organs and structures once labelled as vestigial have been found to have an important purpose.

    The trichinoidal worm in Ham’s argument is that it was medical experts who believe in evolution who actually did the research which uncovered the functions of these body parts. Creationists just assumed that God put them there for some reason and took the matter no further.

    Moreover, Ham doesn’t explain why such structures are so much smaller in humans than in other creatures. Supposedly, for instance, the appendix is a reservoir for benign bacteria. Don’t humans, especially primitive humans, need as much protection from disease-causing microbes as other species?

  6. “he got red in the face, flew into a rage, started foaming at the mouth, then fell to the floor”
    Something like this?

    Florida doesn’t hol, put push the line: “Hambo and Comfort together! Can it get any better?”
    Yes. Add David Rives – that would be quite a trio!

  7. Sometimes it seems like Ham digs himself deeper and deeper into a hole the more he tries to rescue himself from his embarrassing performance in the debate with Nye. He’s obsessed with it. He can hardly write about anything without bringing up Nye.

  8. By being opposed to Western learning, creationists like Ham make themselves appear as the Christian version of Boko Haram.

  9. The whole truth

    Ol’ hambo says: “Everything we see in nature confirms the law of biogenesis — life only comes from other life. Life never comes from non-life.”

    Hey hambo, is ‘God’ “life”? Is ‘God’ a life form? If not, then according to you, life couldn’t have come from ‘him’.

    If ‘God’ is “life” (a life form), then what “life” (life form) did ‘God’ come from?

    If ‘God’ isn’t “life” (a life form), then why is ‘God’ called ‘he’, not ‘it’? And why is ‘he’ called ‘God’? ‘God’ is a male gender word. So is yhwh, and so is yehoshua (aka jesus – a male gender name).

    If ‘God’ isn’t “life” (a life form), then how did ‘God’ get Mary (the alleged mother of ‘God’s’ son yehoshua) pregnant? Were ‘God’s’ sperm “life” or “non-life”?

    Is yehoshua (aka jesus) ‘God’? Is yehoshua a part of ‘God’? Was yehoshua “life” (a living life form) when ‘he’ was around for the 30 years or so that the bible says ‘he’ was?

    Was yehoshua alive (a living life form) when he was allegedly tortured and and then killed?

    Was yehoshua alive (a living life form) when he allegedly rose from ‘his’ grave and went wandering around and talked to people?

    Is yehoshua alive right now?

    Are yhwh-yehoshua-holy-ghost ‘the living God’?

    Is the holy ghost alive (“life”/a life form)?

    Is holy ghost male, or female?

  10. Ken Ham:
    You see, there are two different kinds of science: observational and historical science.”

    You see, calling evolution a “theory” raises it to a level is
    [sic] really doesn’t deserve!”

    You see, Ken Ham drives me nuts with that rhetorical conceit. Not to mention his arrogant, stubborn mental thickness. (And his sloppy proofreading, but we are all guilty of that from time to time. But we don’t have paid staff to handle those editing chores.)

  11. @The whole truth: Oh, you’re going straight into the Lake o’ Fire, m’boy! You see, you are not to ask those blasphemous questions.

  12. @mnbo that clip looks like what SC has described.
    Whatever Ham smokes, I want to smoke it too

  13. “the many PhD scientists who study biology but reject evolution” – the first time I’ve seen five or six fanatical nut-cases referred to as “many” -!

  14. What he smokes doesn’t get you high, it gets you low – way down low on the evolutionary scale. – Beware, my friend! ‘This is your brain on Ham: !#%^&@*#($*&#^@!’

  15. Then, let Hambo keep smoking. I don’t know how SC does this time and again. Such writing would numb one’s brains

  16. The whole truth

    retiredsciguy, I’m doomed! Doomed, you see!

    🙂

  17. Dave Luckett

    It’s another datum in the search for an answer to the perennial question: Are the creationist leaders fools or liars? Do they actually believe what they say, or are they charlatans milking a scam, or cynical seekers after power?

    That is, mostly. Of course they could be all three, and more. Ham has a record of apostasy that inclines me to put him in the last category, primarily. He’s gone to where the power and money are. He praises Comfort, but I think he and Ray would walk in lockstep only until one was no longer useful to the other. Ray, on the other hand, strikes me as mostly a con-artist. I’ve watched him adapt his patter to his mark, which is a con-man’s skill, and one Ham doesn’t have. Ham’s far more a simple authoritarian, which would accord with the theory that for him it’s about the power.

    Rives is probably dumb enough to be sincere, I think. Well, for some values of “sincere”. He really should be aware that his “ministry”, which consists of shilling content on the web, is engaged in doing exactly what the man he calls God told him not to do. He’s got the affect of a particularly dopey beach bum in a suit, so quite possibly he isn’t bright enough to make that reflection. Or he might be walling it off – shutting his mind to it, which has had the effect of disabling his capacity for rational thought entirely. Maybe.

    I don’t know. Which is a problem, because the approach to countering these people will differ somewhat, depending on whether they’re mostly fools or mostly liars.

  18. Well, in addition to engendering Nazism and Communism and every other bad political thing, now Darwin is also is responsible for same-sex marriage!

    That’s according to Nancy Pearcey, Discovery Institute fellow, here:

    http://www.christianpost.com/news/same-sex-marriage-is-disrespectful-of-the-human-body-christian-philosopher-nancy-pearcey-says-cp-interview-2-2-137422/

    Darwin must have been the greatest evil genius in history, far exceeding Ernst Stavro Blofeld, Fu Manchu and Emperor Ming!

  19. gnome de net

    [Ham] can hardly write about anything without bringing up Nye.

    …to promote sales of the video, of course.

  20. One thing interesting about Hambo is how duplicitous he is about the topic of evolution, the reason for this is simple he has two different audiences he is addressing. The first audience is the introspective/curious Christian that is trying to fit the Biblical creation narrative into an educated world view. For this audience Hambo actually is an advocate for evolution. Hambo will say it is merely between kinds, but when one consideres the amount of change required in the Hambo time line one would think some creation scientist would do some research on the topic. This narrative also is how he is able to have his PhDs on staff and still keep a bit of their self respect.
    Then there is Hambo’s general audience. For example this is the grandparents he wants to buy Ark boarding passes for their grandchildren. They are in no way intellectually curious, and hiss at even the mention of the word “evolution”. This article is for the latter audience.
    The trick for Hambo is this clumsy juggling act. For Hambo, it isn’t too much of problem, just a bit of misdirection depending on who he’s talking too give the appearance of cohesion.

  21. I think you are really on to something here, Troy. The few times I have actually looked at AIG or similar sources, I am shocked by how far they have come from “God created all the animals as they are.” This “evolving within kinds” really is a kludge and easily allows the counter argument “Well, of course they evolve within types, first, and then given long enough they cross those type ‘lines.'” Micro evolution IS evolution, the only question is how far can it go. All Ham and company are left with is that gawd somehow made some basic blueprints, but species are free to go crazy after that, but only up to the “kind” brickwall. I can’t really imagine grandma in the pew really wants to hear that. They want to hear that the lard gawd made those cute pandas special.

  22. I sent an email to Prof Krupa (he briefly thanked me though he will never have heard of me) flagging my comments here:
    http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&start=1620 (second half of my latest post in the thread)

  23. @Paine in the Butt
    The Bible says nothing about the animals being unchanging in “kind”. That is just one of those things that people make up. The Bible says nothing about either macroevolution being false or microevolution being true. The idea of it being impossible to “break the macroevolutionic barrier” is just something made up to respond to the impossibility of fixed species.
    And I rather suspect that it is less a concern about pandas, than about humans being part of the natural world – especially not being related to apes, especially because it is so obviously so that one has recourse to the last resort of making up Scriptural proof.

  24. I think the Bible implies fixity of species (which is why many Christians used to assert that).