Ken Ham: The Pain of Childbirth

Fertility statue

What’s that picture? We got it from Wikipedia commons. It’s displayed in their article on the Venus of Willendorf, an “11.1-centimetre (4.4 in) high statuette of a female figure estimated to have been made between about 28,000 and 25,000 BCE.” They also say: “Several similar statuettes and other forms of art have been discovered, and they are collectively referred to as Venus figurines, although they pre-date the mythological figure of Venus by millennia.”

Why are we displaying it? We think it complements something we found at the blog of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), 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’s article is Bigger Brains and Childbirth Pains. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

The Smithsonian currently has a traveling exhibition exhibited at certain public libraries promoting human evolution titled, “Exploring Human Origins: What Does It Mean to Be Human.” … In Andover, Ohio, a news report stated that “30 people attended a lecture on why having a baby is so painful and difficult for humans at the Veteran’s Memorial Performing Arts Center on Sunday. The lecture was part of the Exploring Human Origins: What Does it Mean to be Human traveling exhibition, sponsored by the Smithsonian Institution and the Andover Public Library. The lecture was titled ‘Ouch! Why is it so hard to have a baby? An Evolutionary Perspective.’

An evolutionary perspective? You know ol’ Hambo can’t tolerate that! He says:

Dr. Scott Simpson, a Professor in the Case Western Reserve School of Medicine’s Department of Anatomy, gave the supposed answer to that question in his lecture. The news report stated, “‘Then why would it be so easy for our close relatives like apes and chimps to give birth, when it is so painful for humans?’ he asked. ‘One reason is that we have evolved to walk upright and the human pelvis has tried to accommodate that. Also the human brain has grown, which makes for proportionately bigger heads and a more difficult time getting through the birth canal.’”

Typical evolutionist. But don’t be fooled by that “supposed answer,” dear reader. Hambo knows more than those fools! Let’s read on:

So bigger brains and upright walking — that’s why women supposedly have pain and difficulty in childbirth. And that answer is just totally wrong!

How does Hambo know it’s wrong? He consulted his all-purpose fact checker, which has the answers to everything. He explains:

In fact, anyone who can read the Bible can find out the true answer to that question. Because Eve took the fruit (being deceived by the devil), we are told what God did:

[Hambo’s bible quote:] To the woman He said: ‘I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children’ (Genesis 3:16)

Ah, of course! Eve originally must have looked like that statue. She was beautiful! How heavenly it must have been for Adam. But then, as penalty for her sin, her splendidly ample thighs were shrunk to the size most women have today. Here’s more:

Evolved bigger brains are not the reason for why there is pain in childbirth — we could say it’s because of fallen brains!

Hambo then gives some links to articles by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, the creationist gynecologist. If you’re interested, you can find them by visiting Hambo’s blog, but this is where we leave it.

So what did we learn? We learned that because of sin, we no longer have women who look like that ancient fertility statue. Well, we’ve seen a few walking around in Walmart, but they’re the exception. We’ve been cheated, gentlemen!

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

25 responses to “Ken Ham: The Pain of Childbirth

  1. Mary L. Mand

    Hambo is probably an expert on “fallen brains.” On medicine? Listen to the ducks, “Quack! Quack!”

  2. It’s really going to hurt if he ever pulls his head out of his patootie. I can’t go on his site, my eyes would never stop rolling upward.

  3. Since large brains are a cause of pain during childbirth, Kenny’s mom should send him a thank note for the easiest childbirth to date.

  4. Ken Ham is my hero. He’s the never-ending punchline to a million jokes. Though it is too bad he’s all too real.

  5. Ham’s mommy didn’t have that problem with the resultant size of Kenny’s brain.

  6. Oh, wise one, my grasp of our language is poor, but I believe you meant that the picture “complements” Ken Ham’s comments.

    Which are somehow dumber than usual.

  7. You are correct, dweller42. I fixed it. Thank you.

  8. Olivia–that generous and forgiving soul!–is delighted that you have found the Venus of Willendorf and wishes you both a long and happy union.

  9. Do the female members of the AiG congregation appreciate that K.H. thinks of them as little more than cattle? That he believes they are the source of sin and therefore deserve any misfortune that befalls them?

    Ken probably doesn’t do many sermons on the value of human rights. Except for themes like “It’s your human right and divine obligation to abandon any expectation of human rights and accountability and submit yourself to mysticism, theocracy and most precious of all Discretionary and Arbitrary judgement”.

  10. Evolved bigger brains are not the reason for why there is pain in childbirth — we could say it’s because of fallen brains!

    You can say anything. That doesn’t make it true. Neither does the argument “But gawrsh, it’s in the Bible!

  11. Is Kenny boy really as ignorant as he keeps demonstrating, or is it just an act to line his pockets with donations from fools?

  12. Dave Luckett

    Abeastwood, you underestimate the value of compartmentalisation, when applied to minds. Ham believes, AND he is lining his pockets with the donations of fools, both at the same time. He also believes that it is impossible to know past events without eyewitness accounts of them, but at the same time that scientists who make eyewitness observations are deluded, and ALSO that he, Ken Ham can in fact reconstruct the past from evidence that he selects. All three concepts are to be strongly averred and advocated, by turns, as convenient.

    He also believes that the Bible is inerrant if read literally, and that it must be interpreted as a simple statement of fact, AND ALSO that it must be interpreted metaphorically (or even simply ignored) when its meaning is inconvenient. He believes that adding to or subtracting from the text is a deadly sin, and also that it’s not one when expedient.

    Ham can do this without his brain melting down. That requires a series of adamant firewalls within his mind, but he has them. So he can be both a con-man and a visionary. He can run a scam, and be a man of God, both at once, without cognitive dissonance. He can build a structure heavily braced with steel that will never go to sea, call it a replica of the Ark, and ALSO think it’s evidence for the original, both at once.

    He can run an enterprise that is exclusively devoted to separating suckers from their money, call it a Ministry, and think that’s just fine. He lives in a mansion and pulls down half a mil a year, and his family are all sucking on the same teat. If you asked him how many of the hungry he has fed, how many poor he has clothed, how many homeless he shelters, what he has done for suffering, he would look at you funny. That’s not what he does, and the fact that the man whom he calls God told him that he had to do that, is in another little compartment.

    Compartmentalisation. That transcript from the Scopes trial shows that Darrow actually did provide one of the best lines in the movie: Bryan having answered that he didn’t think about the implications of Bible stories because he didn’t think about such things, Darrow asked him if he ever thought about the things that he did think about.

    You could ask the same question of Ham. He’d ignore you, of course.

  13. Gen. 3:16 “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;”
    Fertility as punishment.

    Gen. 20:18 “For the LORD had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah Abraham’s wife.”
    Infertility as punishment.

    Ol’ Hambo’s god has some problems with pedagogy.

    (Please note, Third Prof: Ol’ Hambo’s god. I am not sneering at the authors of the Bible nor at christians in general. Thank you.)

  14. @Dave Luckett: We were writing our answers to abeastwood at the same time. Your essay on Ham is beautifully written; although you must admit mine is a bit more succinct.

  15. Dave Luckett” “Ham believes, AND he is lining his pockets with the donations of fools, both at the same time.”

    If science can only deal with the testable – and I for one am convinced of that – then we can only be sure of the second part, as the evidence is copious, and no one even tries to hide it. But we simply can’t know the first part – whether he honestly believes his particular (young earth) interpretation of Genesis – as does only a minority of self-described Biblical literalists, by the way. At best we can only personally speculate. For what it’s worth (nothing) here’s my speculation: First, there are 3, not 2 options: (1) He privately believes it’s all nonsense, but nonsense that sells, so will never admit it. (2) He believes it, but “on faith,” and privately realizes that the evidence does not support it, but pretends that it does, because that fools more people than “this book says so.” (3) He really, truly believes that a “convergence, neither sought nor fabricated” of independent evidence supports his particular interpretation, and by extension falsifies all OEC interpretations as well as that of mainstream science. I give it ~50% possibility each of 1 or 2, and ~0% possibility of 3.

  16. @FrankJ
    Myself, I don’t have any opinion worth sharing about the motivation of particular creationists.
    But I find it difficult to conceive of a consistent Biblical literalism which insists on fixed “kinds” but accepts the heliocentric model of the Solar System. To mention just two conflicts. The simplest explanation for that would be that one does not value coherence.

  17. I think (believe I guess) Hambo is a true believer and also has no problem justifying his executive salary. I bet he also believes he looks good in that fringe beard too.

  18. TomS: “But I find it difficult to conceive of a consistent Biblical literalism which insists on fixed “kinds” but accepts the heliocentric model of the Solar System. To mention just two conflicts.”

    The “compartmentalization” that Dave Luckett speaks of explains that perfectly. We all exercise some compartmentalization. Mine has to do with selected squeamishness towards certain foods.

    All Biblical literalists are selective in which parts, and/or which interpretation of the same part, they claim to take literally. And as you know, some anti-evolution activists (e.g. Behe and Dembski) do not even claim to take the Bible (Genesis) literally, even when they encourage others (e.g. Dembski, in his 2010 “Flood” speech) to do so. But we simply don’t know that those who claim X, actually personally believe it, even “on faith in spite of no evidence.”

    As you know, anti-evolution activists, and many of their fans, especially the “activists-in-training” (e.g. those who write letters-to-the-editor), are all radical authoritarians, who need “different truths for different people” to justify their authoritarianism. Not unlike the parent who tells their children fairy tales. Except that the authoritarians’ “children” are adults. The activists claim whatever they think the audience will buy, and know that almost none of them will notice the inconsistencies. Heck, most critics who can clearly see the inconsistencies, rarely find it important to point them out. You and I are among the rare exceptions.

    As you know I find Ronald Bailey’s analysis of anti-evolution activists’ antics convincing, and have been citing it at nearly every opportunity for 15+ years. I just never assume that it applies – or does not apply – to any particular individual.

  19. Troy: “I think (believe I guess) Hambo is a true believer.”

    Does that mean that you think that he thinks the independent evidence validates his particular interpretation (my (3) above), or just takes it “on faith,” as in the Bible overrules any contradictory evidence (my (2) above)?

  20. Well FrankJ, It is wrong to attribute rationality to Hambo. Hambo rejects scientists and science so evidence isn’t important to him (so closer but not exactly your (2)). AIG itself comes along two lines of apologetics, one for the educated thoughtful group, the other for the apathetic just gimme my golden ticket to heaven group. So any mention of science is merely to appease the skepticism of the former group. I suspect some of the appeals to authority AIG routinely does to puff up their science cred emphasiszing the titles “Dr” and “PhD” are for the latter group–“PhD is enough for me uhYuk” (Though what they actually say at length are for the former group)
    Evidence of AIGs two lines is how evolution between kinds and so forth are sometimes mentioned while at other times it becomes “evilution” and the word itself is given a venomous status.

  21. Troy:
    “I bet he also believes he looks good in that fringe beard too.”

    LOL! Have you noticed that fringy beards like Ham’s have become almost a trademark among the religiousy types? F’rinstance, the minister in Lafayette, Ind. recently arrested for camera voyeurism ( Creationist Voyeurism: Case #13).

  22. Troy: “AIG itself comes along two lines of apologetics, one for the educated thoughtful group, the other for the apathetic just gimme my golden ticket to heaven group.”

    The “evidence isn’t important to him” is well within my concept of (2). By “privately realizes that the evidence does not support it” I don’t mean to imply that they care that the evidence taken in context does not support their conclusion. They actually like the fact that they can “mine” some of that evidence to promote doubt, either to reinforce their own conclusions, which they know they would have come to with or without that selected evidence.

    Those in (2) who do struggle with the fact that independent evidence does not validate the history that they want to believe often come to a crisis point and reject all “creationism,” including the ID variety. And even become active critics of ID/creationism. One example is Glenn Morton, who identified “Morton’s Demon,” that which “filters out” inconvenient evidence. For those who avoid that crisis, and go on to become anti-evolution activists, I suspect the opposite “demon.” I allows inconvenient evidence in, but filters it out, in that they would never admit it to others. That someone like Ham would have 2 different strategies for 2 different audiences suggests the possibility of the 2nd type of demon. In other words, my (3). In the case of the DI, where they either vaguely concede most of mainstream science (the billions of years, and sometimes even common descent) or just “play dumb,” even more strongly suggests (3).

    I would have loved to have been a “fly on the wall” in the 70s and 80s when one “species” of YEC peddlers were formulating the “don’t ask, don’t tell what happened when” strategy “evolved” into ID. There I think we’d find an even more dramatic “fossil” than “cdesign proponentsits.” It would be something like “Yeah, the six-day creation, ‘kinds’ and ‘Flood’ are total nonsense, but the ‘masses’ need it. All we need to do is promote unreasonable doubt of evolution and most people will infer literal Genesis by default.”

  23. Headless Unicorn Guy

    Do the female members of the AiG congregation appreciate that K.H. thinks of them as little more than cattle? That he believes they are the source of sin and therefore deserve any misfortune that befalls them?

    At which point, you have a direct one-to-one correspondence link between AIG-style YEC and Quiverfull Christianese Patriarchy.

  24. Headless Unicorn Guy

    Troy:
    “I bet he also believes he looks good in that fringe beard too.”

    Is “fringe beard” anything like the Amish?