Ken Ham Abandons All His Principles

Although Ken Ham Insists He Ain’t a Ape, he somehow has no problem claiming a close kinship with Neanderthals. That’s what he does in his latest post: Putting out the Fires of Evolutionary Beliefs. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

The evolutionary Neanderthal story changes again! Far from being the dumb brutes that they were depicted as for years, increasing evidence shows that Neanderthals were just as intelligent — and human — as we are. Of course, this comes as no surprise to those who start with the Bible and recognize that Neanderthals are descendants of Adam and Eve, and Noah, just like us.

He’s right — if: (1) the Flood actually occurred 4,000 years ago; (2) everyone was killed except for Noah, his wife, and their necessarily incestuous offspring, from whom we are all descended; and (3) among their offspring were Neanderthals. Then, yes, we’re very closely related to them. After that, Hambo says:

Well, scientists have long found black chunks of manganese oxides at Neanderthal sites. Since they were often found with other colored minerals, scientists assumed they were used for body paint. But a new team of scientists suggests that these chunks were used as fire starters. They discovered scratch marks on blocks “suggesting [the manganese oxide] may have been scraped or ground to produce a powder.” This powder, sprinkled on wood, would have made an excellent fire starter. This study adds further support to the idea that Neanderthals started their own fires rather than just harnessing the flames of naturally occurring wildfires.

Hambo links to this two-paragraph item in Scientific American: Fire! Neandertal Chemistry. The suggestion that Neanderthals actually started fires that way is, of course, speculative. We have no problem with speculation, provided it’s regarded as such, but we wonder why a creationist like Hambo places such confidence in this research. Hey, Hambo — Were you there?

There’s another reason we’re surprised that Hambo has accepted this research. It’s — gasp! — historical science. Hambo has based his career on claiming there’s a difference between what he calls “operational” science and “historical” (origins) science. We have a whole section on that in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Ah well, let’s read on. Hambo declares:

Neanderthals were humans just like us, with intelligence and ingenuity. But because they lived in a harsh world after the Flood and during the Ice Age, they simply used what was available around them to survive, just like many cultures do today.

We’ve mentioned before that there’s no biblical reference to an ice age. Hey — there’s no mention of Neanderthals either! What’s going on here? Hambo continues:

There’s no reason to believe that Neanderthals, or any other people group, were less human or less intelligent than we are.

Actually, there are reasons. Although their DNA over 99% the same as ours, the bones of over 400 Neanderthals have been found, and they certainly don’t look like modern humans. They were larger, but with disproportionately short limbs, and their faces were noticeably different from ours. As for their intelligence — who knows? It’s tempting, but we’ll refrain from saying that it was similar to the average creationist.

This is the end of Hambo’s brief post:

All humans are made in God’s image, descended from Adam and Eve. And the more we learn about ancient man, the more we see God’s Word confirmed.

Hambo seems to have broken all of his own rules.

• He routinely rejects vast amounts of science because the researchers are “secularists” who start from non-biblical assumptions, yet here he readily accepts what are clearly tentative conclusions in a science paper.

• He’s ignoring what he claims is a big difference between what he calls operational science and historical science.

• He’s impressed by the similarity of human and Neanderthal DNA, yet he ignores the DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees, estimated to be between 95% and 99%.

• He blithely mentions a non-scriptural ice age.

• And he accepts as fact that Neanderthals started their own fires, which perhaps they did, although that conclusion violates a key reason for his rejection of evolution — we have no eye witnesses testimony.

Why has Hambo done this? What could possibly motivate him to throw away his creationist principles, and make a mockery of his beloved creation science? The reason — which we find inexplicable — is so he can embrace the Neanderthal as his brother. Okay, Hambo, we won’t argue with you. There is no difference between you and a Neanderthal.

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

17 responses to “Ken Ham Abandons All His Principles

  1. This study adds further support to the idea that Neanderthals started their own fires rather than just harnessing the flames of naturally occurring wildfires.

    Well, duh. Anthropologists have known for generations that Neanderthals made fire; evidence suggests that even the much more primitive Homo erectus did so. Once again Ham demonstrates that as a scientist, he’d be a great janitor.

  2. Of course, this comes as no surprise to those who start with the Bible and recognize that Neanderthals are descendants of Adam and Eve, and Noah, just like us.

    So I wonder what Noah thought of his progeny giving birth to these “brutish” hominids? Welcome to the family? And so then, why are they not still around?

  3. Just as the dim xtians pick and choose the parts of the buyBull they like, they also pick and choose the parts of science that they like!!! Well that is consistent.

  4. S.C. ponders “What could possibly motivate him to throw away his creationist principles, and make a mockery of his beloved creation science? ”

    Could it be for monetary gain? The two things he concerns himself with in text is a careening interpretation of his sales manual and the revenue he foresees. Would Jesus have kicked his table of coins over as well?

  5. michaelfugate

    Ken believes any thing smarter than he is has to be human?

  6. Neanderthals are descendants of Adam and Eve, and Noah, just like us

    To make this true, Neanderthals would have had to compress close to 400,000 years of evolution into a mere 2,000 or so years. They would have had to accumulate all the many differences scientists see into a much shorter time period beginning with the flood some 4,000 years ago.

    Now, there’s a major problem there. Creationists deny macroevolution occurs at all. But here we see a creationist claiming that macroevolution occurs about 200 times as fast as scientists see it–and in reverse!

    What a joke!

    And that’s just the beginning of the many problems with this creationist claim.

  7. Dave Luckett

    Wouldn’t Ham think that the Neanderthals were antediluvian? That is, that they were swept away with the flood? Maybe his dinky little creationist amusement park will have pictures of them drowning.

    Perhaps he thinks, as some other creationists do, that the Neanderthals are the same as the Nephilim referred to at Gen 6:4, although since these are said to be the sons of gods, (plural, yet) and mortal women, they’re an obvious borrowing from pagan myth. They are said to be “mighty men of valor”, of old.

    But who knows what Ken Ham thinks, if the verb can be applied at all.

  8. I don’t think that Hambo worries at all about the veracity of his scribblings. He operates on the assumption that his target audience is both ignorant and intellectually lazy. Their ignorance is not only with regard to science, but also the bible as well. Most Christians that I know have very little biblical knowledge, and almost no knowledge of how the bible was put together.
    With that ignorance and laziness in mind, Hambo appears to have discovered that he can write any narrative he thinks will excite and/or frighten his drooling army of dullards into filling his pockets with their money.
    This is something that he is very skilled at. Along the way he, may have deluded himself into thinking that whatever he says or writes is profound and correct, but that is not really the point. His calculation is to maximize the weight of his purse.

    I think that his coterie of creation “scientists” operates on the same basis, although a few of them seem to me to be genuinely stupid or otherwise mentally impaired.

  9. One of the things that surprised me about the YECs, when I first started learning about them, was how little they knew about the Bible.

  10. Ham has a more practical reason for considering Neanderthals as simply a variety of modern humans. If they were a separate “kind”, Noah would have had to include a pair on the ark, presumably in a cage like the other “kinds” of animals. That would be awkward, given their close relationship to modern humans. On the other hand, if they were fully humans in the time of Noah, they would have been killed by the flood.

    All traces of the prehistoric world were wiped out by the flood, so remains of camping sites means Neanderthals must have been present after the flood, i.e. in biblical times. For Ham, this means he must claim that they were descendent from Noah, or perhaps formed when God threw a tantrum at Babel. Ham really has no choice, in my opinion.

    What Ham doesn’t mention, is the problem that they are not mentioned in the bible — even though their remains have been found in an Israeli cave. The bible includes descriptions of the other peoples in the area, so there is no reason why it would not include commentary about the very different Neanderthals. It’s a glaring omission if Neanderthals are presumed to exist after the flood.

  11. @waldteufel and TomS: Most of the Protestants that I grew up around got their information about the bible from “bible reading groups”. In those, some leader would have a scripted “scripture lesson”. They would read selected bits from various parts of the bible stitched together to make a semi-coherent story. One summer vacation in high school I decided to read the whole thing, straight through, end to end. That convinced me there was no coherent story in it, and I decided I was an agnostic. In college in some history and religion courses I learned that the stories were mostly cribbed from earlier religious myths, and the “historical” parts were almost all wrong. As the myths were no more likely to be true after they were collected into the bible (or koran) than they were before, I decided I was an atheist.

  12. TomS observes:

    One of the things that surprised me about the YECs, when I first started learning about them, was how little they knew about the Bible.

    A systematic failure of scholarship doesn’t suddenly end when “learning” about the Bible. You simply can’t turn willful ignorance off and on.

  13. Our dear SC is flabbergasted and asks between two gasps: “What’s going on here? Why has Hambo done this?”
    Why, you already have hinted at the answer yourself many times. Ol’ Hambo understands science better than any qualified scientist. Ol’ Hambo understand theology better than any trained theologian. Now Ol’ Hambo knows better what is in The Bible than that Holy Book itself.
    Ol’ Hambo hasn’t violated any of his principles or rules. See, he has only one: Ol’ Hambo is always right!

  14. When I first heard of the Documentary Hypothesis, It was the first that I heard that I was not the only one who couldn’t follow the plot.

  15. “those who start with the Bible”

    Yes, it’s always smart to start with the bible’s example: contradictions, illogic, factual errors and glaring omissions. Hambo and ilk are, if anything, biblically consistent. And just plain wrong.

    Good thing for us SC thrives on this stuff. And shares it.

  16. Charles Deetz ;)

    mnbo solves it all: “Ol’ Hambo is always right!”

  17. This is just one example of the cheap propaganda put out by AiG this weekend. This may be of interest:
    http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3756&p=50838#p50838