Ken Ham Insists Humans Didn’t Evolve

The recent discovery of Homo naledi has thrown the creationist world into a tizzy. Such things aren’t supposed to exist! But if they do exist, they can’t mean what they seem to mean. So what does a creationist do?

One reaction can be 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 has just posted What Does It Mean to Classify a Fossil as Homo? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Do you realize that Homo means different things to different scientists?

No, Hambo, we didn’t know that. The Wikipedia article on Homo is quite specific. It says:

Homo is the genus comprising the species Homo sapiens, which includes modern humans, plus several extinct species classified as ancestral to or closely related to modern humans — as for example from Homo habilis to Homo neanderthalensis. The genus is about 2.8 million years old; it first appeared as its earliest species Homo habilis, which emerged from the genus Australopithecus, which itself had previously split from the lineage of the genus Pan, the chimpanzees.

But Hambo thinks that some scientists disagree. He explains:

When an evolutionist classifies a fossil as Homo, he does not mean the same thing a Bible-believing scientist does.

Oh — it’s creation “scientists” who disagree. Okay, let’s read on:

There has already been a lot of buzz on evolutionists’ websites and blogs mocking our assessment that the published evidence does not support a Homo designation for Homo naledi.

Your Curmudgeon was one of those — see Ken Ham Ain’t No Kin to Homo Naledi. Hambo continues:

You see, the evidence cannot speak for itself. It must be interpreted. And the worldview of the scientists looking at the evidence limits and determines how they will see it.

Well, yes. Real scientists are limited — to reality. They have to fit the newly found evidence into the pattern formed by all the other available fossil evidence. Here’s more:

Evolutionists are trying to figure out if these fossils are human enough for them to jump on the Homo bandwagon because their worldview demands the existence of intermediate forms.

We don’t demand intermediate forms, we find them. It’s Hambo’s worldview that insists such things don’t exist. Moving along:

The evolutionists’ presupposition that human evolution occurred as a continuum through various intermediate forms means that they believe intermediate forms must have existed and need to find them.

Amazing, isn’t it? Another excerpt:

What some people don’t get is that it’s very easy for an evolutionist to slip something into the Homo category!

Really? Don’t try it with trilobite. On with the article:

We on the other hand know from God’s authoritative Word that humans and animals (like apes) were specially created by God at the same time without evolution. And biological science affirms God’s Word by failing to reveal any mechanism by which one kind of creature can evolve into a different and more complex one.

Wow — evolution has no mechanism. Natural selection doesn’t exist. Who knew? And now we come to the end:

Bible-believers know there can be no in-betweens.

[…]

Unlike the evolutionists, we don’t have the luxury of picking a point on an evolutionary continuum because from God’s Word we know one never existed.

So there you are. Evolutionists have no mechanism, and no “in-betweens,” but they keep on pretending. Hambo, on the other hand, knows they’re all fools! And now, so do you.

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

33 responses to “Ken Ham Insists Humans Didn’t Evolve

  1. Great take-down of Ham’s nonsense!

  2. Hambone’s at it again, I see, exposing his ignorance naked and unashamed.

    As for “God’s authoritative Word,” how does Ham square the New Testament’s declaration that Jesus is God’s only son with the reference to the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4?

  3. Homo is the name of a taxonomic genus. There is nothing about genera in the Bible. The word “ape” in the King James Version is the English designation for the only non-human primates which were known to Europeans up to about AD 1500, which were Old World Monkeys. The word “monkey” is a new coinage, and (I don’t know why), the word “ape” changed to mean the newly discovered chimps, gorillas, orangs, gibbons. So whatever anyone says about apes today, it is without any chance of being Biblical. It is like saying something Biblical about the Grand Canyon or calculus.
    The Bible says nothing about the “kind” of humans, let alone species, genus, etc. – except that it does recognize some relationship to animals.
    The Bible says nothing about fixity of taxonomy.

  4. Ken must yearn to be a country lawyer. “It’s all in the interpretation yer honor and we both know the law must be taken literally based on my interpretation of it”.

  5. I’m just surprised the Bible mentions nothing about there being two Homo naledi on the Ark.

    Whatever, it’s another fine exposition of cutting-edge creation science from that fine institution Answers In Gibberish.

  6. > “Unlike the evolutionists, we don’t have the
    > luxury of picking a point on an evolutionary
    > continuum because from God’s Word we
    > know one never existed.”
    —————
    Psychologically, I’m curious what Hamster feels, deep down, as he pays himself tons of money every year to chronically lie to people.

  7. I think Ham could square the existence of all these hominids if he would just declare that God created just one “kind” of ape (including humans of course) before the Flood. I’m sure his creation science researchers could come up with some scriptural evidence and say the ape diversification happened directly after the flood when all that other super-evolution and species diversification was occurring.

    Creation scientists are all too happy to invoke this scenario for other species and to explain post-Flood biogeography and biodiversity. I wonder why not for humans? Could it be they would have to admit Adam had ape genes? Or that Noah was the great-great-great grandfather of an orangutan?

    This hypothesis might have been floated around earlier but the chimps and bonobos in the test groups loudly protested “I ain’t no kin to no Ken Ham!”

  8. Ken Ham rails regularly about scientists making assumptions. And yet, Ham himself is always relying on the granddaddy whopper of all assumptions — that scripture is God’s inerrant Word. A huge assumption based on…what?

  9. The above post is based on the assumption that Ham is being sincere, an assumption that I must admit is based on not a shred of evidence.

  10. A huge assumption based on…what?

    The design inference?

  11. @retiredsciguy-
    See the Wikipedia article “Divine inspiration”. The proof-text commonly cited
    is
    2 Timothy 3:16–3:17:
    All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
    At least they have a proof-text somewhat related to the topic, and has been historically used to back the claim. You may find that basis for the assumption lacking, but it is not just something that the modern creationists have just recently made up.

  12. The whole truth

    “The proof-text commonly cited
    is
    2 Timothy 3:16–3:17:
    All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
    At least they have a proof-text somewhat related to the topic, and has been historically used to back the claim. You may find that basis for the assumption lacking, but it is not just something that the modern creationists have just recently made up.”

    The only thing that crap from the bible is proof of is the tyrannical narcissism of whoever wrote it, and hambo is a monster, just like his imaginary sky daddy. I would be THRILLED if it were found that I am not related to him and his god pushing ilk in any whatsoever. As far as I’m concerned, hambo and his insane ilk are a much lower life form than slime mold.

  13. As I’ve frequently remarked, TomS, 2 Tim 3:16 doesn’t say a word about having to read scripture literally in order to draw this inspiration, doctrine, reproof, correction or instruction from it. Nowhere does scripture say that. Modern creationists have made up the requirement for literal reading – and not just any literal reading, but their literal reading.

    But more than that. Not just a literal reading, and and not just their literal reading, but their non-literal reading wherever they want, also. So Gen 6:1-4 is not to be read as “sons of God”. Luke 3:38 is also not to be read literally – Adam was not the literal son of God, either. Nor were the lesser gods in Psalm 82 literally sons of God, nor even gods. Jesus’s prophecy at Matthew 16:28 is also not to be read literally. He didn’t actually mean “kingdom” as we understand the word. When the author of Acts says (1:1) that in the former work he recorded all things that Jesus did, this is obviously a hyperbole. And so on.

    Draw any of these or many others to their attention and watch the armoured shutters slam down.

  14. Our Curmudgeon notes

    The recent discovery of Homo naledi has thrown the creationist world into a tizzy.

    Although I haven’t yet seen a Creationist specifically call this out–at least, not yet–I suspect the real alarm for them is this nugget:

    Berger and his team were stuck with the improbable conclusion that bodies of H. naledi were deliberately put there, by other H. naledi. Until now only Homo sapiens, and possibly some archaic humans such as the Neanderthals, are known to have treated their dead in such a ritualized manner.

    No ‘animal’ does such things! This must make Hambo feel like the Simian Archaeologist, in Planet of the Apes, who unearthed an ancient human doll that said “Mama!”

  15. Hambo boldly declares

    What some people don’t get is that it’s very easy for an evolutionist to slip something into the Homo category!

    Not true–though that might have been the case under the old ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ era…

  16. It would be interesting to find out what research (besides researching methods of discrediting other research) that creation scientists actually do.

  17. @Dave Luckett-
    I agree that the literal interpretation of Scripture is not justified by that proof-text. But it is at least about reading Scripture, and, I believe, has a long history of being used as a justification for the high value of Scripture. It is one of the proof-texts which one can get into fruitless arguments about. Therefore, I hesitate to say that it is an instance of 20th-21st century “making things up” about what the Bible says. Not as egregious as some of stuff that we see.

  18. I always enjoy seeing 2 timothy quoted as support for anything, given that it is almost certainly a forgery not written by Paul. The irony is too delicious.

  19. I was told on comments once that I should not use the word ‘delusional’ as this is a word that applies to mental stability or sanity. Well Old Hamebone sure proves that delusional applies accurately.

  20. And Hambo can’t figure out why educated young people are leaving the church in droves. Almost on a daily basis, Hambo and his ilk reveal amazing stupidity.

    I used to think that Hambo was merely a cynical carnival barker, but his recent scribblings show me considerable depths of apparent delusion as well. He seems to produce equal measures of drool and spittle.

    In my wildest imagination, I cannot conjure up the image of Hambo taking any delight whatever in new knowledge on any front. His intellectual development seems permanently stuck somewhere in the bronze or iron ages.

  21. waldteufel observes that Ham’s

    intellectual development seems permanently stuck somewhere in the bronze or iron ages

    You are too kind here.

    I would have said Ham’s head was stuck somewhere the sun don’t shine…

  22. Great Claw, I fear that I can’t escape my nature of brimming over with the milk of human kindness. 🙂

  23. Megalonyx says: “I would have said Ham’s head was stuck somewhere the sun don’t shine…”

    This could be even more evidence for the Curmudgeon’s Uranus Inference.

  24. That’s piling on, SC. There’s already more evidence supporting your Uranus Inference than there is in all the scribblings of the Discoverrhoids.

  25. Pete Moulton diagnoses:

    That’s piling on, SC

    Indeed.

    But topical application of Preparation H should relieve the symptoms…

  26. “The word “monkey” is a new coinage, and (I don’t know why), the word “ape” changed to mean the newly discovered chimps, gorillas, orangs, gibbons.”
    As usual, the answer is “Germans.”

    “Ape” was the first word we had for primates and in most of the woodcuts – predominantly German – they were predominantly depicted as being tailless or practically tailless. As we developed a great specificity when talking about the natural world, we divided the primates into monkeys (with tails) and apes (without tails).

    Because this is English, there are exceptions on both sides – you’ll find primates that clearly fit the definition of “monkey” are still called “apes” and vice versa – but that’s the basic answer.

  27. Megalonyx:
    “Hambo boldly declares:

    ‘What some people don’t get is that it’s very easy for an evolutionist to slip something into the Homo category!’

    Not true–though that might have been the case under the old ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ era…”

    You might add something about the need for a lubricant…

    You are a very cleverly funny man, Cardinal Megalonyx!

  28. Bible-believers know there can be no in-betweens.

    That pretty much says it all.

    Reminds me of the Ham-Nye debate, where Ham states that no amount of evidence would cause him to change his mind, because he has a magic book.

    It’s a wonder these guys have any credibility even among creationists.

  29. If I were close to Ken Ham I’d seriously be concerned about the state of his mental health.

  30. The key point that all this bloviation is intended to obfuscate is that interpretation is required, precisely because it isn’t at all obvious that naledi should not belong in genus Homo.

  31. Charles Deetz ;)

    Wow, everyone is piling on Hambo. I guess he asked for it. Here’s my take …
    So god created separately, and without mention in his scientific record, many different types of apes and monkeys all on day six. These many different types, when you attempt to sort them all, land on their own little grass-blade of micro-evolution. Yet if you sort them out and organize them by brain-size and other features, they start to line up in some fashion. And why do some have any, ANY CHARACTERISTICS THAT RESEMBLE GOD’S SPECIALLY DESIGNED SPECIES? Regardless of one’s position on creationism, the fact that Nabilis shares traits with Sapiens should absolutely annoy the H-E-double-hockey-sticks out of any fundamentalist bible-believer. SPECIAL is out! What the heck are these animals doing existing in the first place if they were created by GOD?

    It must all keep Hambo up at night. It’s amazing to me as it is to see the surface of Pluto, and I’ll just accept it as is. Hambo meanwhile has to fit into all the other facts that just don’t fit. Good luck dude.

  32. If I were close to Ken Ham I’d seriously be concerned about the state of his mental health.

    I don’t know where Ham left it but it surely can’t be found in the state of Kentucky.