Ken Ham Reacts to Anti-Ark Billboard Campaign

You knew this was coming. Yesterday we posted Anti-Ark Billboard Campaign Is Proposed. Now we have the reaction 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.

We imagine ol’ Hambo is red in the face, foaming at the mouth, and rolling around chewing the carpet. The title of his post is “Equal Rights” for All But Christians. You probably didn’t sleep last night, waiting for this, so we’ll get right to it. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

The Tri-State Freethinkers atheist group in our area of Northern Kentucky — Greater Cincinnati, who say they are “advocates for equal rights,” continue to make it very obvious they don’t want equal rights for Christians.

What? How, exactly, did Hambo come to that conclusion? He attempts to explain:

Now in the first place, an atheist group has no basis for accusing anyone of being “immoral.” They have no basis for absolute standards — only subjective fallible opinion!

Even if that were true, how does the proposed billboard campaign deprive Hambo of his rights? He shows us a pic of the proposed billboard, and says:

Note the wording, “Genocide and Incest Park.” Again, how can atheists, who have no basis for any absolute standards accuse anyone with such a moral judgment, such as genocide and incest?

Words have definitions. How can the slaughter of virtually all humans on Earth not be genocide? And how can the few descendants of Noah populate the world without engaging in incest? Hambo explains the “misuse” of incest:

Atheists believe that all life arose by natural processes and that man is just an animal related to all living things. Because they believe humans evolved from some ape-like ancestors, evolving humans, just like animals, would have mated with whomever they wanted, whenever, with no restrictions except whatever they could accomplish for their own desires. And really, from a truly consistent atheistic perspective, that belief would not change for modern humans.

Ah, so according to Hambo, atheists (presumably that term includes anyone who accepts the theory of evolution) are practicing incest right now! He doesn’t actually know that, of course, but he doesn’t hesitate to make the accusation. What about Noah’s children and grandchildren? There was no one else on Earth, so didn’t they, of necessity, engage in incest? Hambo ducks the issue:

Christians, however, believe that all humans — back to Adam and Eve — are related but only to each other. Also, biblical Christians build relationships according to what our Creator God, the only absolute authority, has determined. Thus marriage, which was invented by God as recorded in Genesis, is for one man for one woman.

That doesn’t answer our question. He then presents a fund-raising video featuring the Tri-State Freethinkers’ president, Jim Helton, who is also the regional director for the American Atheists. We haven’t looked at it. Hambo probably assumes his drooling fans watched it and are outraged, so he tells us:

First, it should be very obvious that ultimately they are not against the Ark project but Christianity and the God of the Bible. They are just using the Ark project as a way of shaking their fist at God. Note how the president of this group throws the Bible, treating it as a contemptible object. I wonder if he would ever do that so publically [sic] with the Koran?

Irrelevant, Hambo. What about genocide and incest? And what about the alleged violation of your rights? Skipping a few irrelevant paragraphs, Hambo declares:

By exhibiting their intolerance of the Ark Encounter this time, this group highlights the open hostility and growing aggressiveness of atheists in attacking the Bible and the God who revealed Himself through its historical accounts. This particularly highlights the intolerance for the Bible, which itself was the moral framework and foundation of Western political philosophy of liberty and equality.

Uh huh — the bible is all about liberty and equality — but somehow it doesn’t mention democracy, yet it’s loaded with justification for monarchy and slavery. Never mind that, we’re still waiting for an explanation of how the billboard campaign deprives Hambo of his rights. For some reason, he never gets around to discussing that. Nor does he dispute the genocide and incest that the Ark represents. He finishes his rant with this:

The life-size Ark will be the largest timber-frame structure in the world — an engineering and architectural marvel. The scores of exhibit bays inside will be filled with world-class exhibits that I believe will receive rave reviews. This family-friendly facility will open July 7, 2016. For more information on this themed attraction and to purchase tickets, go to [link omitted].

That’s it. That’s the best ol’ Hambo can do. Not very impressive, is it?

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

26 responses to “Ken Ham Reacts to Anti-Ark Billboard Campaign

  1. To be fair, for the Noah family to repopulate the world, the closest relationship required between, er, breeding couples would be first cousins. I don’t think that’s regarded as incestuous in most cultures — Charles and Emma Darwin were first cousins, to name the first example that comes to mind.

  2. So like all liars4jesus he either lies or evades.
    He did both and did it so obviously only another xtian would not see it.

  3. Oh, I meant to say:

    Otherwise, Hambo’s screed hits a new dialectical low, even for him. He must himself realize that he’s not just not made his case but not even attempted to do so — just used the method of Argument By Bluster. Presumably he’s reckoning his readers won’t notice this. Hard to read when the screen’s covered in spittle, I know.

  4. realthog says: “To be fair, for the Noah family to repopulate the world, the closest relationship required between, er, breeding couples would be first cousins.”

    Why? Couldn’t fathers breed with their daughters, or brothers with sisters, or aunts with nephews? Were you there?

  5. Unsurprising that the “defense of the faith” always turns into an ad for the big boat side show.

    How long until he just starts directly telling people they can strike back against the oppression of Christendom by making a pilgrimage to his amusement park? Or just send cash. It’s all about the cash.

  6. Why? Couldn’t fathers breed with their daughters, or brothers with sisters, or aunts with nephews?

    Oh, they could, of course, and had the Noahs been irremediable atheists they probably not only would have but made a point of doing so, and often. However, I think we can assume that the events of the preceding few weeks would have scourged any last lingering traces of atheism from them.

    What I’m pointing out is that they’d have had no need for incest in order to repopulate the world. Just careful genealogical records for the first few generations, in case of slipups.

  7. @realthog
    And Noah got drunk!
    Noah, who was the one righteous person before the Flood.

  8. I flagged this at Panda’s Thumb just now.

  9. @TomS

    And Noah got drunk!

    Bloody atheists taught him how to ferment dinosaur poop.

  10. Dave Luckett

    Sez Ken:

    Christians, however, believe that all humans — back to Adam and Eve — are related but only to each other.

    Actually, no. Most Christians accept the theory of evolution and the relatedness of all life. Ken is simply telling a lie, which arises from his delusions. He thinks of his coterie as the only true Christians, a tiny remnant. Notice what fertile soil this is for delusions of persecution: Ken likes to think he is being denied his right of free speech because his opponents are exercising theirs. “(T)hey don’t want equal rights for Christians”, says he. That’s a persecution complex talking, if ever there was.

    Ken goes on:

    biblical Christians build relationships according to what our Creator God, the only absolute authority, has determined.

    Here we see the engine driving Ken: authority. Absolute authority. That’s what Ken is about. It’s the only thing that matters to him. He can’t think in terms of morality being a human construct caused by the necessity to live as a social species. That would imply that moral rules have a rational basis. No, no. For Ken Ham, morality is what authority demands. He does not, he need not, he cannot, think in other terms. Rational? Who said that authority need be rational?

    Out of that mindset, a whine emerges:

    Thus marriage, which was invented by God as recorded in Genesis, is for one man for one woman.

    This is of course the ritual knee-jerk response to the fact of same-sex marriage. Whine as much as you like, Ken – that’s your right, and nobody is taking it away. But SSM is here and it’s going to stay.

    But that whine also betrays Biblical illiteracy: In Genesis, nobody, but nobody, says that marriage is “for one man and one woman”, not God, not Moses, nobody. One man and several women is just fine by Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch. So is concubinage and sexual slavery. In certain circumstances, polygyny is mandatory, as when marrying and engendering children upon your deceased brother’s widow.

    Like TomS, what has always astonished me is how ignorant fundamentalists are of what the Bible actually says. And how ready they are to bend it to their particular purposes – to the extent of grossly misrepresenting it, as Ken Ham does here. And ignoring it, when convenient, as they do Jesus’s own rules on divorce.

    I know that I should be more upset with their assault on science, secular democracy, and rational thought itself. Still, what really sticks in my craw is their self-serving ignorance and gross hypocrisy. A personal failing, no doubt.

  11. RetiredSciGuy

    Thanks, Dave Luckett, for pointing out Ken Ham’s putting words in the Bible that are not there (one man, one woman marriage). I was chomping at the bit to post a similar comment until I read your post.

  12. @Dave Luckett

    Like TomS, what has always astonished me is how ignorant fundamentalists are of what the Bible actually says….

    They don’t read the bible, need to read the bible, but if they do, they don’t understand it, that’s why fundamentalist preachers hold classes/meetings to tell them what the bible “actually” says and “means.”

  13. I just looked at Ham’s tirade page and saw the link to the freethinkers site w/their speaker. What I found strange was the picture of Darwin on the wall behind him. This seemed to be somewhat of an idolatry symbol, just like pictures of jesus or crucifixes hanging behind Ham or any other preacher. I might think that sends a very negative message to those who disagree with the freethinkers and reaffirms their religious beliefs even more, that atheists are to be hated and Darwin is their symbol.

  14. Christine Janis

    They don’t read the bible, need to read the bible, but if they do, they don’t understand it, that’s why fundamentalist preachers hold classes/meetings to tell them what the bible “actually” says and “means.”’

    One could say the same about science and evolutionnews.com

  15. I agree with DavidK here. That even looks strange. It may not be meant as actual worship, but we all know how easily creationists will twist anything that they can find to suit their own purposes.

  16. Well Dave they are not really all that ignorant of what the buyBull says. Its just that if they say what it says then most would rebel. Instead they know just are willfully ignorant most of the sheeple are so they say what they like to appeal to the sheeple who will not REALLY and ACTUALLY READ the book o’BS, so they can get away with it, cuz they all know that atheists are liars so can be ignored.

  17. Personally, I think the anti-ark billboard campaign is rather foolish, and potentially harmful, in that it tends to re-enforce the Creationists’ own erroneous conflation of atheism and secularism.

    Secularism is an absolute bedrock prerequisite for a free and democratic society. Secular societies have no conflict or issue with religious communities that subscribe to the basic values of secular democratic government, but there is essential conflict–to preserve the liberties of all–with religious groups promoting authority over secular governments.

    Anything that enables Hambo and his ilk to misrepresent the preservation of secular government as a promotion of ‘atheism’ is not good, IMHO

  18. I usually don’t bother with Ham posts, if only because even most self-described creationists don’t buy his young-earth nonsense. But I find it fascinating that he trots out the absurd “atheists vs Christians” caricature, as if everyone is either an atheist-Darwinist-evil-liberal or a Fundamentalist-Christian-young-earth-“saved”-conservative. Never mind that a majority is none of the above.

    Though I find it even more fascinating – and annoying – that so many people who know better let him get away with it. Sure, everything he says requires refuting, but that caricature alone screams that he is pulling your chains.

  19. Charles Deetz ;)

    At first I was disappointed with the billboard’s message, as there must be something better to say, something more persuasive. But as we see the screen-spittled rant from Hammy, it may have been spot on.

    The billboard is asking two questions that ten year olds will be asking Hambo until he runs back to Australia:

    “Did god really kill all the people on the earth? Why would a ‘good’ god do such a horrible thing? That doesn’t sound nice at all.”
    If Noah’s family were the only people left, did that mean that the girls had to marry their brothers? That doesn’t sound right.”

  20. Atheists really shouldn’t be bothered by the Ark Park from a religious point of view, any more than they are bothered by their local church or any other religious structure. The billboards only reinforce the “angry atheist” impression held by many christians. However, in a nation that needs to improve and broaden STEM education and literacy to remain competitive in the world, the Ark Park is definitely a problem. It’s just not a religious problem.

    Billboards with quotes from locally popular conservative figures, religious leaders, and others promoting STEM education, paired with quotes from Ham about dinosaurs on the Ark, about the character of scientists, or any of his other anti-science claims, would be much more effective in getting the public to think about the Ark Park as something other than harmless entertainment.

    Ham could hardly object to having his opinions put up on billboards.

  21. Actually there is no disagreement between the Bible and good old ‘Observational Science’ when it comes to the consequences of the ‘Flood’. Those that entered the ‘Ark’, lost almost everything that they had and everyone they knew. Also, their world was destroyed (I nearly forgot that). What does the ‘Eyewitness’ account have to say about it afterwards (there would of course been real eyewitnesses in the form of the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Noah)? Nobody seems to have thought the fact that they were all close relatives and descendants of Noah was worth mentioning. According to Ken’s ‘Timeline of the Bible: https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/2005/TimelineOfTheBible.pdf – Noah and at least one son (Shem) were around at that family reunion at Babel; did no one notice? Did Noah not make any comment about the building of the ‘Tower’? Science agrees – there was no flood.

  22. The ancestors of Charles II of Spain were largely the children of the three sons of Philip and Joanna of Castile. (The only outliers were Christian II of Denmark and Francis I, duke of Lorraine, over about 200 years.) This makes for an interesting parallel with the three sons of Noah. Read the sorry story of Charles II in Wikipedia.

  23. Not to bring politics into this discussion BUT in the grand scheme of things Donald Drumph is the closest candidate to a Noachian Christian. True ™. I do believe he said he’d date his own daughter.

    Old Hambo should endorse Drumph any day now.

  24. What about Noah’s children and grandchildren? There was no one else on Earth, so didn’t they, of necessity, engage in incest? Hambo ducks the issue:

    Christians, however, believe that all humans — back to Adam and Eve — are related but only to each other. Also, biblical Christians build relationships according to what our Creator God, the only absolute authority, has determined. Thus marriage, which was invented by God as recorded in Genesis, is for one man for one woman.

    But if “all humans are related only to each other,” how can incest be avoided?

    And if marriage was divinely ordained as being between one man and one woman, what about Jacob and his two wives? The Bible doesn’t contain a word of condemnation against him for his bigamy.

  25. I’m always amazed that people think being an atheist means that by rejecting their morality, I must have no morality whatsoever. They seem to forget that secular morality is usually developed and implanted by society (as well as the other issues being decided by me for myself, i.e. marriage or racial equality). But more importantly, there is an EVOLUTIONARY advantage to morality. Avoiding killing and robbing is better, a tribe can survive better than 1 person, and a tribe that cooperates, survives and procreates.

  26. @CJ
    Without going into the serious study of this …
    Most people have an distorted understanding of “survival of the fittest”. For example, I recall being told by someone that it meant that it was contrary to science to help poor people to survive. Poor people out-reproduce, despite their being less fit, he told me. I just pointed out to him that if they out-reproduce, then that meant that they were fitter.