Ken Ham: Scientists Are Ignorant

There was a global shattering of irony meters caused by the latest entry 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.

The title of ol’ Hambo’s post asks: Why Don’t More Scientists Believe in Creation? Great question! Why don’t you, dear reader, believe in creation? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Our many talented speakers and I clearly show how observational science confirms God’s Word.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Then Hambo says:

And yet, despite the overwhelming evidence that supports the Bible, many people still reject biblical creation. Why do so many, including scientists, fail to see the truth of the history of God’s Word?

Verily, it’s a great mystery. Let’s read on:

Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, the newest addition to our research staff here at AiG, shared in a recent interview why he thinks so many scientists reject biblical creation, despite the evidence that confirms God’s Word:

Before we get to that, here’s Jeanson’s write-up at AIG. They say he has “a PhD in Cell and Developmental Biology from Harvard University,” and was “formerly with the Institute for Creation Research.” Harvard must be proud of him. His write-up in the Encyclopedia of American Loons says he has “a Medical PhD from Harvard.” Okay, here’s what Jeanson says:

I believe surveys say around 97% of professional scientists hold evolution. Understandably many people want to know why, if the evidence for biblical creation is so compelling, so many scientists still reject it. Well, the same surveys show that probably at least 70% of professional scientists are non-Christians.

Egad — what’s wrong with those people? Why are they all heathens?

Also, most people go through the public school system, and they hear from an early age just evolution. They never hear, and they are not taught even to consider, an alternative hypothesis. So they are taught from an early age to suppress the truth, and so this is just the fruit of an educational system that ignores the opposition.

Horrible! This is the last quote from Jeanson:

Also, by and large, they just don’t read our literature. They’re ignorant.

They must have loved that guy at Harvard. Now Hambo continues:

Sadly, many people are blinded to the truth of the history recorded in God’s Word because they are actively suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, as Romans 1 makes clear. It’s not that they need more evidence — they have all the evidence they need, but they suppress it.

He’s talking about you, dear reader. Here’s more:

But, thankfully, God often uses AiG and other creation ministries to get people thinking and questioning what they have always believed.

Yes, what would we do without Hambo’s website? This is the end of his post:

I encourage you to share AiG resources with your friends and family to encourage them to think, question what they believe, and be pointed toward Jesus Christ and the salvation that He offers.

Okay, dear reader, you know what you have to do. Go forth, and tell everyone you know about the wonders to be found at AIG.

Copyright © 2016. 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

30 responses to “Ken Ham: Scientists Are Ignorant

  1. “…most people go through the public school system, and they hear from an early age just evolution. They never hear, and they are not taught even to consider, an alternative hypothesis. So they are taught from an early age to suppress the truth, and so this is just the fruit of an educational system that ignores the opposition.”

    It would seem to me that most people and scientists-to-be were subject to church teachings in their home lives while growing up. But in time people began to question these parental/peer leanings and questioned the reality they supposedly represented, only to discard these teachings as myth and stories not at all in tune with the real world. Some people, like Jeanson (another medical non-scientist creationist) have never outgrown this nonsense and their world is pinned on believing rather than exploring nature.

  2. The cynic in my says AiG exists for the sole purpose of making the DI appear to be a sane, rational, reasonable alternative.

  3. michaelfugate

    Why do so many, including scientists, fail to see the truth of the history of God’s Word?

    We see the truth easily enough – the problem is that any truth presented in “God’s Word” about things other than science.

  4. Ham and his ilk love to invoke 1st Corinthians 3 which validates his claim that scientists are ignorant:

    “If you think you are wise by this world’s standards, you need to become a fool to be truly wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the Scriptures say,
    “He traps the wise in the snare of their own cleverness.” And again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise; he knows they are worthless.”

    Paul attacks the wisdom of the world in some of his other writings, whereas I don’t think that any words attributed to Jesus attacked wisdom. Like many folks, Ham is more of a Paulian than he is a Christian. Hamites should maybe listen so other words of Paul:

    “So don’t boast about following a particular human leader.”

  5. There should be an arrogance meter, as well as the more common irony meters. Although I don’t believe one could be built to withstand Ken Ham.

  6. Holding The Line In Florida

    The Hambone never ceases to dumbfound me. Just when you think he has hit the lowest possible level of reality denial, he sinks even lower!!

  7. I have a better question for Ken Ham. Why don’t serious Bible scholars and theologians believe in creationism?

  8. Mary L. Mand

    I prefer to remain ignorant of their ‘literature’.

  9. Hambo’s post is a good example of why I hope the Discoveroids don’t go out of business. Without them, he’d probably be the most prominent of the creationists, and I don’t think I could keep blogging if he were all we had to worry about.

  10. Did Jeanson somehow write a data-free PhD thesis? He clearly hasn’t any idea about what evidence is. And by the way Jeanson and the rest of Discoveroids, it was actually reading the bible that convinced me it was nonsense — long before I had any real science education.

  11. Dave Luckett

    Ken tells us what his methods are:

    “”Our many talented speakers and I clearly show how observational science confirms God’s Word.”

    That is of course a simple lie. It’s a big lie, too. Let us not invoke Godwin; yet it is a lie worthy of a particular subset of politician. It is the foundation of the French saying of Napoleon’s day, “to lie like a bulletin”; of the Russian aphorism on the titles of two major newspapers, Pravda (“Facts”) and Trud (“Truth”) “Pravda isn’t Trud and Trud isn’t Pravda”. Ken is like one of those politicians: a totalitarian. But that to one side.

    For look at how he says it. Ken is dippy enough to admit that it’s a lie, in the very words he uses. Look at what he wrote. Two words stand out: “talented” and “speakers”.

    First, of his speakers, Ken requires talent,. Now, “talent” means something like “realised potential” or perhaps “skill at doing something”, with the skill not specified. It does not mean “expertise” or “knowledge” or “understanding” or “relevantly qualified” or “with experience in the field” or “conversant with the evidence”.

    No, it means “ability to do something”. What is that something? Well, Ken uses it as an adjective. It qualifies the next word: “speakers”. Ken and his acolytes are “speakers”. They’re talented at speaking, he says. Whether they are or are not is a matter of opinion – Ken’s opinion, which is worth what it’s worth. But what they’re talented at is speaking, he says.

    Speaking. What Ken is admitting is that he and his myrmidons are talkers. That talking is what they do. That talking, in fact, is all they do.

    Of course Ken doesn’t actually realise what he’s admitting. The production of evidence, the quality of the evidence, the work amassing the evidence, the treatment of the evidence, the existence of countervailing evidence: all this is irrelevant to Ken. Which is to say, evidence is irrelevant to Ken. What matters to Ken is the spoken word and how the spoken word is presented. The talent of the talker. The gift of the gab.

    And he’s saying it right out loud where everyone can hear him.

  12. Ken Ham, through his mouthpiece puppet Nathaniel Jeanson:
    “Well, the same surveys show that probably at least 70% of professional scientists are non-Christians.”

    “Non-Christian” by whose definition, Mr. Ham? Yours? By your definition, how a person acts toward others has no bearing on whether he or she should be considered a Christian. No, you insist that a person must reject all the evidence presented by the natural world that is in conflict with scripture in order for you to consider that person to be a Christian.

    Many others, including a good many of your “70% of professional scientists [who] are non-Christians”, hold to a different definition — one that is based more on actions than on professed “beliefs”. Specifically, this definition holds that a Christian is one who follows the teaching of Jesus to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

    So, Mr. Ham, I ask you — which definition do you think Jesus would prefer?

  13. Our Curmudgeon observes:

    Hambo’s post is a good example of why I hope the Discoveroids don’t go out of business.

    Me too! I’m still in deep mourning over the loss of Dembski and Luskin, though I think I’ve now moved past the first stage of grieving, which is Denial, and am on to the second: Anger.

    Does the Disco’Tute really think that either Green Screen Annie or Savvy Sarah can possibly spin the ole pet-rodent exercise wheel like dear departed Casey?!

    Ulitmately, of course, I hope that they can; man cannot live on Ham alone. But if a new generation of Discoveroid quote-miners and irreducible perplexers does indeed emerge to keep us entertained, I hope they will also retain some humility, as they root about in the flotsam and jetsam of the bleak creationist shore, and will acknowledge that, if they are able to blather far, it is only because they stand on the shoulders of gerbils!

  14. If Hambo considers a Christian by the exclusive requirements in the statement of faith that is required to get a JOB on his publicly mooching Ark project the number would be much less than 30%.

  15. Anevilmeme has a good point, but I think it’s incomplete yet. Yes, AIG exists to make IDiocy look a sane, rational, reasonable alternative. However there is a flipside. The reason d’etre of the IDiots from Seattle is to make AIG look honest.

  16. michaelfugate

    Here is the start to the “Acknowledgements” of Jeanson’s dissertation “Metabolic regulation of hematopoietic stem cells”:

    None of this work would have been possible without the enablement of Jesus Christ my Creator, whose resurrection from the dead and promise of eternal glory make earthly pursuits valuable, meaningful, and eternally significant. Apart from the transforming acknowledgement of the beauty of holiness that comes from the illuminating truth of the Scripture, this work would have been abandoned several years ago.

    Huh?

  17. Well, maybe the baby jeebus was right there in the lab, running Western blots or something… Or Jeanson thinks CRISPER stand for ChristPerson, rather than clustered regularly interspersed short palindromic repeats.

  18. Jeanson is a typical creationist liar for Jesus. In his ICR profile he wrote:

    He went straight to Harvard Medical School, which he said “sounded like it would be useful for credentials and evangelism.”

    So, although he went to Harvard Medical School he did not graduate an MD, rather, picked up a PhD for “credentials and evangelism.” He has then embarked on a career of lying in public much along the lines of the execrable Jason Lisle.

    Homeschooled, of course. I’m sure his parents are very proud of their darling little sociopath.

  19. I believe surveys say around 97% of professional scientists hold evolution.

    Apart from the grammatical error above, why isn’t it 100%? Probably because there are a few people who call themselves “scientists” on the strength of professional degrees without having ever done any legitimate research. Quacks, that is.

    Understandably many people want to know why, if the evidence for biblical creation is so compelling, so many scientists still reject it.

    Who says the evidence for creation is compelling? Besides people who are paid to, I mean.

    Well, the same surveys show that probably at least 70% of professional scientists are non-Christians.

    (1) So the theory of evolution is what, Jewish-Masonic-Illuminati propaganda?
    (2) And considering how the merry men of DI doubtless define Christianity—as fundamentalist Protestantism—probably at least 90% of Americans aren’t Christians to them.

  20. 97% of professional scientists
    One wonders how many of the 3% are those who were sticklers for the way the question was asked, how many find the question insulting and show their displeasure by a protest vote, how many mistakenly check the wrong box, …

    <

  21. Warren Johnson

    Jeanson says “… around 97% of professional scientists hold evolution. [sic] Understandably many people want to know why, if the evidence for biblical creation is so compelling, so many scientists still reject it.”

    We need to get Ham to admit it also, and nail this statistic down so that none of the Hamsters can pretend it is not true. In my estimation, the whole point of Ham’s debate with Bill Nye was to convince his followers that there was a “reasonable doubt” about evolution.

    Does anyone know where Jeanson got his figure?

    Has Ham ever admitted it in print?

  22. Warren Johnson asks: “Does anyone know where Jeanson got his figure?”

    This article from NCSE says it’s 98% now, 97% in 2009: Views on evolution among the public and scientists.

  23. Warren: I have no idea where Jeanson got his estimate; as you may have noticed, unlike real scientists, the AiGers don’t cite references (except to the bible). I saw a Pew Research Center Survey a year or so ago that indicated 98% of members of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) accept that humans evolved. The AAAS membership includes many types of scientists and levels of background. I’ve read elsewhere that acceptance of evolution is highest among biologists (nearly 100%), slightly lower among physicists, and trails off somewhat as you move away from scientists with biological or physics training. Overall, the number of scientists in the United States who accept some version of Darwin’s proposals is far higher than the acceptance among the general population, which ranks around Turkey and various 3rd world countries in knowledge about evolution.

  24. Warren: I have no idea where Jeanson got his estimate;

    I think we’ll find out where he got his estimate when Jeanson gets his colonoscopy report.

  25. There is a summary report about the Pew survey, dated July 23, 2015 on pewinternet.org. It reports that, depending on which sample of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 98% or 99% accept that humans have evolved. And, BTW, 65% of the general public do, too.

  26. Tom S says: “And, BTW, 65% of the general public do, too [accept evolution].”

    Yes, but about half of those 65% go for theistic evolution. Nevertheless, it’s evolution.

  27. More importantly, was it acceptance of human macroevolution?

  28. Let’s do some math, shall we? Assuming 97% of scientists support evolution, let’s generously say that the 3% rejecting evolution are 100% Christian. Jeanson says 70% of scientists are not religious. That leaves 30% of scientists who are. Subtract all evolution-rejectors from that 30% and that still leaves a whopping 66% of scientists who are both religious and supporting evolution.

    Of course the real numbers are even more damning since evolution-acceptance is more at 99.54% and scientists who attend church or temple are at 60%.