Ken Ham and Baby Gorillas — Oook, Oook!

This one involves the familiar creationist revulsion at the thought of being related to anything else on Earth — especially apes and monkeys, but it also involves the creationists’ opposition to abortion. (We assume that the daughters of creationists are as human as the rest of us, and they also have to deal with fertility problems, but such things are never discussed.) Anyway, abortion isn’t a topic we post about, because the comments quickly become chaotic, so we’ll ignore that and focus only on creationism.

One of our clandestine operatives — “Blue Grass” — alerted us to a new post from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia. His little essay is titled Unborn Gorilla Considered a Baby, but Unborn Humans Considered Fetuses. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

I recently saw an interesting news item about a baby gorilla that was delivered via emergency C-section at the Bristol Zoo in England. What made this noteworthy to me was how the zoo curator and members of the veterinary team referred to the unborn gorilla.

[Hambo quotes from this news story:] They said, “[The mother gorilla] was becoming quite poorly and we needed to act fast in order to give the best possible treatment to mother and baby, and to avoid the possibility of losing the baby. … We also thought that the baby in her uterus was showing signs of being very unwell and in need of delivery.”

What’s wrong with that? Hambo explains:

Isn’t it interesting how this unborn gorilla is being referred to as a “baby” before it was born, not a “fetus” even though that’s technically the term for an unborn mammal? The zookeepers and veterinarians treated this unborn gorilla as if it had value even before it was born. Sadly, this dignity is withheld from millions of unborn human babies.

[*Groan*] Even among experts speaking about human pregnancies, the linguistic transition from embryo to fetus (roughly two months after fertilization) to unborn baby (likely to be viable if born prematurely) is a regarded as a continuum, with unclear distinctions. But ol’ Hambo is the holiest and wisest man in the world, so everything is known to him. He declares:

Instead of being seen as having inherent value and dignity just for being human, babies are seen as nothing more than an extension of a woman’s body, a clump of tissue, or some other dehumanizing term. So babies are legally murdered at the hand of an abortion doctor despite their humanness. This is tragic!

That’s probably Darwin’s fault. Let’s read on:

Now, this isn’t always the case. We are thankful for the doctors, nurses, and caregivers who work hard to save the lives of premature infants or babies who are born with disabilities or complications. We’re also thankful for the many pro-life organizations and clinics that provide hope and help to women and their unborn children around the world. Praise God for these people who value unborn life! In reality, pro-choice organizations should be called pro-death organizations.

Are those pro-life people all creationists? Hambo doesn’t discuss that. He continues:

Sadly, for many people today, the life of an animal seems to have more value than a human life. But humans have a special kind of inherent value that animals can never have because we alone are made in the very image of God [scripture reference]. Animals, though created and cared for by God as well, will never have the value of humans because they simply aren’t made in God’s image.

Right. Here’s more:

As Christians, we need to affirm the value of every human life — born or unborn. That value is so great that God’s Son stepped into history to pay the penalty for our sin so we could be redeemed!

Then he ends with a scripture quote. So we’re left wondering: What should have been done in the case of the pregnant, ailing gorilla? The news story said it had a life-threatening condition. Would Hambo have left it to die? He doesn’t say.

And we can’t help wondering: What about the millions of unborn humans whose pregnant mothers drowned during the Flood, while Noah and his family were merrily cruising around in the Ark? Wasn’t the Flood the biggest baby-killing event of all time? And doesn’t that mean that Hambo’s Ark “replica” is a monument to divinely ordained abortion?

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

13 responses to “Ken Ham and Baby Gorillas — Oook, Oook!

  1. Our Curmudgeon asks:”And doesn’t that mean that Hambo’s Ark “replica” is a monument to divinely ordained abortion?”

    In a word, yes.

    Hambo’s ark “replica” is also a monument to ignorance, and to Hambo’s ability to use that ignorance to line his pockets.

  2. Richard Bond

    As usual, Ham shows his utter inability to distinguish attributes from variables. Does he really mean that he would favour a small clump of human cells over a potentially viable gorilla baby? I really do not like this [expletive deleted].

  3. Hey old Hambone!! Ya got your own uterus??? Virgina?? NO!!!
    Then shut the hell up! Your opinion is of zero importance!!

  4. For Ham, everything is absolute. His mind is simple, and without nuance. As in the Bill Nye debate, he would say, “I have a book.” That’s as deliberative as Ham ever becomes.

    His book doesn’t mention abortion, however, unless one interprets priest administered miscarriages as abortions (

    Although not specifically abortions, in several cases soldiers are commanded to kill and rip open the wombs of pregnant women.

    That’s what Ham’s book has to say on the matter.

  5. “Animals, though created and cared for by God as well, will never have the value of humans because they simply aren’t made in God’s image”.

    Good enough reason to not worry about species extinction and its man-made causes. Good enough reason for animal abuse, too, it would seem. Good thing the ark replica isn’t populated with animals.

  6. Animals, though created and cared for by God as well, will never have the value of humans because they simply aren’t made in God’s image.”
    A rather brazen assertion made by Ham. Wouldn’t the great designer be capable of taking any form if it also breathed life into that multitude of animals? Doesn’t the deity have the power to communicate with the animals, kind of like a Dr. Doolittle? How does Ham come by this statement, how does he know?
    And too, in a previous SC post by another doctor, evolutionists would not lift a finger to help an ailing person, or animal, for that matter. Compassion is only present in creationist’s works.

  7. Ken Ham is made in God’s image? Blimey. Who knew Ken was half-Jewish? Especially with that surname.

  8. Ham did a twitter uh, “tweet” about that topic also. You can see the interesting responses below.

  9. The “especially apes and monkeys” has always fascinated me about public denial of common descent. I bet if one conducted polls of “Do humans share common ancestors with X?” there would be more “yes” answers if X is “dogs” or “cats” than if X is “apes” or “monkeys” (yes I know we “are” apes, but almost no one will answer “no” for that reason).

    Above Ed notes that Ken Ham’s ultimate justification for denying common descent is that he “[has] a book.” What about the DI, which insists that said book is not a science book, and that their “theory” is strictly scientific? They either concede common descent outright, play dumb about it, or at most spin vague statements of doubt that sound more like they want you to deny it even though they don’t..

    Those of you familiar with my comments will expect my usual “Yes, YEC and ID peddlers have a lot in common, but look at their differences!” But this time you’re in for a treat, in that I will highlight one of the most dramatic similarities: Neither “kind” truly thinks that any evidence supports independent origin of “kinds” – either in one busy week ~6000 years ago, or periodically over 3-4 billion.

  10. Some of you might also know my other routine: “Don’t confuse the clueless-denier-on-the-street with the committed anti-evolution activist.” While the former has not given 5 minutes’ thought to the evidence, and the latter stays up nights to cherry-pick evidence, define terms to suit the argument and quote-mine, they too have a dramatic similarity when it comes to common descent: any denial, real or “faked for the cause,” is 100% based on emotion, not evidence. And with a little work, you can always get them to admit it.

  11. It’s okay for God to kill babies – he doesn’t have to follow the rules he gives his creation.

    As to what the Bible says about it: I do recall an Old Testament rule that basically says if somebody accidentally punches a pregnant woman in the stomach while brawling, he needs to pay off the woman’s husband some set amount of money or goods. This doesn’t exactly lead me to believe that in Biblical times the unborn were valued the same as the already-born.

  12. Errr, correction. I should have specified a pregnant woman in that Old Testament comment. Sorry

    [*Voice from above*] As you wish, she’s pregnant.

  13. And what the Bible has to say about the physical relationship between different species: Nothing.
    Because the concepts are anachronistic to the Ancient Near East.
    This means that for anyone to formulate a Biblical alternative to evolutionary biology will either have to use their own imagination or remain negative.