Ken Ham Says Evolution Is Useless

This is a classic from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia, famed not only for his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG), but also for the infamous, mind-boggling Creation Museum, and for building an exact replica of Noah’s Ark.

The title of Hambo’s post is Evolution Has “Absolutely No Effect” on Medical Practice. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

We hear the myth all the time that creationists can’t be real scientists. It doesn’t seem to matter how often we point to creation scientists who have made huge achievements and advances in their field, secularists still say that creationists can’t be real scientists.

[*Groan*] From time to time, creationists point to genuine technological accomplishments of creationists. Hambo sometimes mentions Dr. Raymond Damadian, who invented the MRI scanning machine. However, Genesis had nothing to do with his work. Had he confined his efforts to the “science” in the bible, he couldn’t have accomplished anything — except perhaps making some kind of improved horse-drawn chariot.

We’ve seen that a creationist can be an architect, dentist, physician, or a number of other things. Many seem to be engineers. But they can’t function effectively in those occupations without using knowledge, skills, and technologies that are clearly non-biblical. Then Hambo says:

Well, my personal friend (and cribbage opponent!) Dr. Tommy Mitchell is a creation scientist. He is a medical doctor, and he serves on staff here at AiG. Dr. Mitchell used to be a theistic evolutionist until he began to examine the Scriptures and realized that the two were utterly incompatible. During a recent interview, he was asked how his belief in evolution influenced his work as a medical doctor in contrast to his belief in creation:

Before we start with Hambo’s quotes from Tommy, we must mention that he recently posted something similar, and we wrote about it Creationism and the Practice of Medicine. In that one, Tommy was talking about medical ethics, not the actual practice of medicine. There wasn’t one sentence — not a single word! — about how creationism cures diseases or repairs injuries. Maybe he’ll do better this time. What follows are the words of Tommy Mitchell, who says:

It [evolution] had absolutely no effect. As a theistic evolutionist when I was in medical school, my instructors talked about the kidney, and that when it doesn’t work, here’s what you do to fix it. …. So, operationally, evolution had zero effect on anything I did as a physician.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Evolution also had no effect on building rockets to send men to the Moon. Edison didn’t use evolution when inventing the light bulb. When our air conditioning system needs repairs, evolution is useless. So far, Tommy is doing great. He then tells us:

When I told my medical practice partners I was going to leave the practice to go to AiG, many of them said things like, “I can’t believe you’re doing this! This is silly! Can’t I talk you out of this? Don’t you know you’re giving up being a physician to go out and teach this fairy tale?” And in the midst of this discussion, I would generally say, “I get that you’re an evolutionist, but tell me how evolution helped you in the last week. Give me any decision you made in this hospital that required you to accept evolution.” I never got an answer, not once.

Tommy suddenly switches from medicine to geology:

Now, as a scientist, everything I see in the world is consistent with God’s Word. I can look at those rock layers at the Grand Canyon and see evidence of the Flood. It’s totally consistent with what God’s Word tells me.

Uh huh. That’s why mining companies and oil companies are always trying to hire creationists to help them search for gold and oil using biblical information about the Flood. Here’s one final excerpt from Tommy:

Now, you can build another story around that, but is that story internally consistent? Starting with God’s Word, I don’t have to explain away any inconsistencies. Everything I see, whether it’s the complexity of the nervous system or how the body works, the more I understand that there’s just no way it could be an accident. So when I read in God’s Word “let us make man in our image,” I get it. What I see is totally consistent with what God’s Word tells me.

Then Hambo comes back. His last sentence (before he starts hawking his books) is a good one:

Evolution is a belief system — a religion — and it has nothing to do with observational science and technology!

In response to that nonsense, we’ll point out a few things. First, even if it were true that evolution doesn’t produce practical benefits, it doesn’t have to. Other then providing general background knowledge, what are the practical benefits of studying ancient history? Or cosmology? Or plate tectonics? Or paleontology? And where are the practical benefits of astronomy? Other than improved telescopes — used only for astronomy — it’s difficult to think of any. Well, some astronomy is useful for navigation, but most of what we’ve learned in the past few centuries has no practical effect — other than showing the cosmological absurdity of Genesis. Does Hambo think we should shut down all those studies, and burn those useless books?

Second, everyone (except maybe Tommy) understands the benefit of testing our medicine on species closely related to us — like monkeys, or at least rats. But if we weren’t closely related to some animals, and distantly related to others, then why shouldn’t we save money doing research and use only toad tested medicine?

Third, there are examples of evolution’s practical benefits in the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims — see The theory of evolution is useless, without practical application.

And fourth — we saved the best for last — What are the practical benefits of creationism? It’s absolutely useless. It’s worse than useless, because it contradicts astronomy, geology, physics, biology, and every other branch of science that it touches. Evolution, on the other hand, is totally consistent with all other sciences, strongly indicating that it describes the same reality — the one in which we live.

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

24 responses to “Ken Ham Says Evolution Is Useless

  1. michaelfugate

    Lactose tolerance in adult humans arose at least twice in different herding populations. Vitamin D deficiency in response to agriculture and less varied diets led to lighter skin in northern human populations. Interbreeding with Neanderthals may have made our immune systems oversensitive to allergens. Coevolution with gut bacteria and changing diets. Coevolution with dogs. Need I go on?

  2. Ken Ham says that he can get to 19, and all you atheistic cribbage players are denying the message of Cribbage Jesus!

  3. Our Curmudgeon asks: “Does Hambo think we should shut down all those studies, and burn those useless books?”

    In a word — Yes.

    I think Hambo’s dream is to drag us all back to the Iron Age and make us all dependent on AiG for intellectual guidance: with appropriate member’s discounts, of course. I’m sure the thought of an army of mindless, bible-carrying zombies drooling as they stand in awe at his feet would bring ecstasy to the man.

  4. How about the misperception that there is a perfect human, and if we eat right, live right, and apply the exact right medical treatments, we can achieve perfect health. In reality, everything we know about life is that evolution has produced a human that is “good enough” and that even healthy choices are always a trade off of good and bad, enough sun but not too much, obtaining enough calories but not too many, eating enough fat of the right kind, even foods which have vitamins but can be toxic in the wrong dose. There is no perfect human design, human functionality, or even lifestyle, because we’ve evolved in a somewhat tinkered fashion, and we have to deal with that.

  5. PS. And even the Bible doesn’t give us prescription for a perfect healthy life, nor does prayer provide the so oft needed healing. Evolution provides far better answers to these issues than does the Bible.

  6. One could equally argue that god has “Absolutely No Effect” on Medical Practice never mind creationist scientists.

  7. Not only has the bible had no practice post ice effect on science it has had a negative effect by virtue of the incorrect science it contains.

  8. I don’t think Charles Darwin or Alfred Wallace cast their minds into the future uses of evolution. They were too excited by the break through.
    Alexander Fleming who discovered penicillin was well aware how fast bacteria evolve.
    He warned us all and now we see the results of ignoring his timely.warning: antibiotic resistance.
    I’m surprized someone in the medical field did not put the brakes on.
    I expect we would have still had the industrial revolution with out Darwin so pullution would still be with us.
    It seems to me even now we are not funding drug companies to put things right but we seem to be busy throwing money at Mars.
    Ken Ham is incredibly short -sighted but in our anxiousness to shoot him down lets not regret that we do not suffer from the same error.
    As civilisation advances so it gets more fragile but the rat waiting in the wings by the million is a great survivor.

  9. Okay, Ken…next time you get sick you get no antibiotics. Your sheeple get none either, especially if you or they should be sickened by now-resistant strains of whatever germ is in your system. Feel free, however, to sacrifice a chicken, goat or other farm animal to make a burnt offering.

  10. MF asks: “Need I go on?”
    No. Goddiddid anyway.

    Sornord doesn’t get it either. God gave Fleming antibiotics because he knew his very own Ol’ Hambo would need them.
    Checkmate, athiest evilutionists.

  11. michaelfugate

    Tommy is not a creation scientist – he is just a creationist. There are no creation scientists.

  12. As a Biblical creationist “the Bible means what it says” doctor, I wonder how many demons Dr. Tommy has cast out to cure diseases?

  13. I continue to point out that the Bible is at least as clear on the fixity of the Earth as on the fixity of species.
    I suggest (being charitable about this), that anyone who is a heliocentric creationist on the basis of an inerrant literal Bible has not been sufficiently reflective.

  14. Hey, Ol’ Hambo, some more stuff smart people like to figure out.

  15. Perhaps the proper response would be “Evolution Says Ken Ham Is Useless.” Tangential – Ham intruded on my otherwise enjoyable viewing of college basketball with his TV ad for free tickets to the Creation Museum: Get ’em while they last!!

  16. Tommy says”Now, as a scientist, everything I see in the world is consistent with God’s Word. I can look at those rock layers at the Grand Canyon and see evidence of the Flood. It’s totally consistent with what God’s Word tells me.” Welcome to the 15th century Tommy. But don’t be driving the car today because the hydrocarbons you would be burning don’t have squat to do with your ignorant world view regarding geoscience. The scientists who found the hydrocarbons that were used to make your gasoline used the science of modern geology, not the 12th century idiocy you espouse. Not the brightest crayon in the box eh Tommy?

  17. @Rob: Yes, I taught human anatomy at a major medical school, and I’m always amused by IDers claims that we were perfectly designed by an all-knowing something or other. If the magical mystical sky-fairy did it, he/she/it wasn’t as clever as the average freshman engineering student at Lehigh. I don’t think DrTom was paying attention in anatomy or pathology or several other courses.

  18. Doesn’t somewhere in one’s medical education learn comparative anatomy/embryology?

  19. Abeastwood doesn’t get it either:

    perfect design: evidence for an Intelligent Agent (blessed be Him/Her/It).
    imperfect design: evidence for an Intelligent Agent (idem).

    TomS asks a question: sure, and the results of the comparisons invariably point at an Intelligent Agent, whether the designs are similar or not. ‘Cuz god – oooops, I meant that Intelligent Agent had a purpose for everything.

  20. Richard Bond

    Well, the other day i had to lift a heavy box from the floor, and I correctly remembered to keep my spine straight: not the most instinctively obvious way to do it. Of course, it is always possible to depend on heuristic rules, but much more reliable to understand from evolution that human spines are imperfectly evolved from those of quadrupedal ancestors, and consequently vulnerable. As Richard Feynman pointed out, he did not need to know very much, because he could work things out from his understanding of fundamental theory.

    Ham: when did you last lift a heavy object without rupturing a disc? And how did you learn to do it?

  21. Ol’ Hambo has an answer on everything: “The previous time. And I learned it by praying – God answered my question.”
    Prove the opposite!

  22. Has Ken Ham not heard of the ICR?

    “The Centre for Evolution and Cancer at The Institute of Cancer Research will apply Charles Darwin’s principle of natural selection within ecosystems to our understanding of why we develop cancer and why it is so difficult to treat.”

  23. Now, as a scientist, everything I see in the world is consistent with God’s Word.

    I wonder if he told that to his patients when they were suffering from cancer or some other terrible disease. It was consistent with God’s word.

    No wonder he left medicine.

  24. What are the practical benefits of creationism? It’s absolutely useless. It’s worse than useless, because it contradicts astronomy, geology, physics, biology, and every other branch of science that it touches. Evolution, on the other hand, is totally consistent with all other sciences, strongly indicating that it describes the same reality—the one in which we live.

    Hear, hear!

    What practical benefit has, for example, Dr. Ben Carson—a respected surgeon and a believing Seventh-Day Adventist—gained from the creationism which is part of his faith? How has it enabled him to be a better surgeon? What technological benefits have ever sprung from creationism, rather than merely from people who in their private lives happen to be creationists?