Hambo Says The Bible Is a Science Book

Although creationists deny science that contradicts what they read in the bible, they’re strangely inconsistent. Despite what the bible says — e.g.: The Earth Is Flat!, and The Earth Does Not Move!, and The Scriptural Value Of Pi Is 3 — they ignore those things, but deny the theory of evolution and cling to the recent creation of the Earth and the universe.

That’s certainly true of Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia. The latest attempt from ol’ Hambo to bring order out of this epistemological chaos is titled Is the Bible a Science Textbook? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and Hambo’s bible references omitted:

I often have people tell me that “the Bible’s not a science textbook!” But the Bible is actually a textbook of historical science — and the only such textbook that is totally reliable and infallible.

Truly an inspirational beginning! Then he says:

Now, I’m glad the Bible’s not a textbook of science like those used in public schools, because it would change all the time. Many ideas have come and gone. For example, most of the evolutionary beliefs used by scientists in the transcript of the Scopes Trial have been abandoned — but God’s Word remains the same. It is the infallible Word of God — the true history book of the universe.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] The bible never changes! After that he tells us:

Secularists often accuse us of reading Genesis literally but not other portions of the Bible. We point out that we should read the Bible naturally. There is history (e.g., Genesis), poetry (e.g., Psalms), prophecy (e.g., Isaiah), and so on. Different genres of writing require different interpretative methods. Historical documents such as Genesis are not intended to be taken figuratively. [Bold font in Hambo’s text.]

Pay attention now, because Hambo presents secularists with a challenge:

My challenge to secularists is this: the evidence of creation is obvious, so “do not be unbelieving, but believing” [scripture reference] and “lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light”[scripture reference].

Yes — the evidence is obvious! Then he challenges the believers:

When you reject God’s Word in Genesis and interpret it through the lens of man’s fallible, opinionated word, more and more compromise is sure to follow. You see, when you start compromising in one area of the Bible, it isn’t long before compromise shows up in other areas. My challenge to all believers is this: believe all of God’s Word! [Bold fon’t in Hambo’s text.]

Thrilling, isn’t it? Hambo continues:

People are born and die, but “the word of our God stands forever” [scripture reference] — and no person can ever change that! Secularists can’t change this: “The entirety of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever”[scripture reference]. Many people try to change God’s Word, particularly in Genesis, but “forever, O Lord, Your word is settled in heaven” [scripture reference].

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] What passion! What devotion! Your Curmudgeon is convinced! The Earth is flat. It doesn’t move. And pi = 3.

We’re trembling too much to go on, so we’re quitting now. It’s fortunate that the rest of Hambo’s post is just a commercial for his mind-boggling Creation Museum, and for Ark Encounter, his exact replica of Noah’s Ark.

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

25 responses to “Hambo Says The Bible Is a Science Book

  1. The Bible wasn’t even a good science book for the Bronze Age, literature from Ancient Greece and Rome puts it to shame.

  2. Compare the Bible with the astronomical texts of Babylon. How about the mathematics of Egypt?

  3. If the Bible is such a great science book, why didn’t the ancient Israelites have all the scientific and technical marvels of the modern age?
    The reality is the Bible and its literal interpretation was an impediment to science, which progressed in spite of being tethered to this ball and chain known as Bible science.
    Think of the harassment of Galileo, Copernicus publishing after his death, Darwin hesitating to publish until it was clear Wallace would beat him to the punch.

  4. michaelfugate

    The Bible is supposedly a book of revelation – anathema to science – not science. Perhaps it could be the truth, though very doubtful, but that truth would not have been uncovered by science.

  5. The bible is like a veritable grocery store of fruits and vegetables and people like Hambo just love to cherry pick its aisles to suit his tastte while letting the rest of the shelves rot away.

  6. I think Ham’s rant is that of someone who is frightened; it’s all denial of well known and accepted knowledge with an attempt to support his position with biblical quotations. He obviously knows that the only people who will accept his “evidence” already believe it. Is he not smart enough to realize that proving biblical “truths” via bible verses is a strong example of circular reasoning? I think he is and knows he is only “preaching to the choir”.

  7. Most of the things that the bible actually gets right are things that pagans have figured out first.

  8. Besides that, DavidK and others have the right of it here.

  9. Always sad (and other negative adjectives) to read Hambo’s and other creationists’ delusions. But, their denial of facts and twisted logic are no different than what’s happening in the political realm today. Scientific truth increasingly matters less and less. Control and financial gain are driving even more rejection of facts and logic. I have no or prospects of grandchildren , but I fear for the future of my great nieces and nephews.

  10. Derek Freyberg

    Kenny-boy says:
    “We point out that we should read the Bible naturally. There is history (e.g., Genesis), poetry (e.g., Psalms), prophecy (e.g., Isaiah), and so on. Different genres of writing require different interpretative methods. Historical documents such as Genesis are not intended to be taken figuratively.
    But Kenny-boy, from what part of the Bible do your derive that mode of interpretation? I refer you to the quotes with which you start the second paragraph:
    “Does the Bible simply contain the Word of God? That’s not entirely accurate: the Bible is the Word of God—“All Scripture is God breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16 NIV). And which are the words of Jesus in the Bible? Remember, all are His words—from Genesis to Revelation. Jesus is the WORD (1 John 1:1)”.
    Do you presume to decide which parts of the Word of God (your term) you will read literally and which you will read figuratively?
    You’re as bad as all those you denigrate – well, worse, they don’t waste their breath telling you how to live, but you seem to feel it your mission in life to tell us that.

    On another note, Christmas Town at the Creation Museum promises a “live Nativity” – don’t you think bringing in virgins to give birth is taking this a little far?

  11. Ham mentions that the bible has portions which are history, poetry, prophecy, and so on. The “so on” part is undefined, but it absolutely includes mythology. The bible starts with creation myths popular at the time, followed by a long book of rules and laws, some good fiction (like Job), and “so on.”

    Ham just has trouble separating myth from history. Maybe it would be easier if someone would put it into modern terms – the first book of the bible is a compendium of fake news. Just because it’s been shared millions of times does not make it true.

  12. The Scriptural Value Of Pi Is 3

    I thought that the defense of the Bible offered here a few years ago by Prof Tertius was actually pretty persuasive — that the text was essentially saying that pi was 3ish — and have since then been prepared to give the Bible a free pass on this one.

    Which, bearing in mind that I’m not prepared to give the Bible a free pass on much . . .

  13. “have since then been prepared to give the Bible a free pass on this one”
    Third Prof alas tended to forget one important point: that’s OK on the assumption that the Bible is not a scientific textbook. Now please reread the title of this blogpost again.
    As soon as a christian agrees that the Bible is not scientifically relevant then I’m willing to give the book a pass on anything and everything.

  14. @mnb0

    So what you’re saying is that scientific textbooks never contain approximations?

  15. James Bolton Theuer

    @realthog

    Not if they’re written by omniscient and omnipotent deities. If you assert that Yahweh must use approximations, then you’re admitting that he can’t communicate any better than a human author with limited knowledge. Which would be funny. May as well worship me. My instructions on when to throw rocks at people until they die (never) certainly wouldn’t require sesquipedalian word salads to rationalize ignoring, like Christians do with 99% of scripture. Might put some theologians out of business, but it would temper the luzfest that reading the current scriptures induces.

  16. Not if they’re written by omniscient and omnipotent deities. If you assert that Yahweh must use approximations, then you’re admitting that he can’t communicate any better than a human author with limited knowledge.

    Yes, obviously, that’s true. But, as Prof. Tertius pointed out (if I remember correctly), when your audience is a bunch of Bronze Age nomads you don’t say, “The ratio of the circumference of this circular enclosure to its diameter was an irrational number approximating to 3.14159 . . .” You say: “The ratio was 3ish.”

    There are so many other ways to demonstrate the total inadequacy of the Bible as a science textbook, why base your argument on a solitary dubious case?

  17. To say that the Bible presents unchanging scientific truth on everything must account for the fact that everyone, for a long time, “misunderstood” what the Bible was saying about the Earth being motionless. Only a small group of people in the 20th-21th century “correctly understood” what the Bible was saying about fixity of “kinds”

  18. realthog, speaking about the “approximation” that pi = 3, says: “There are so many other ways to demonstrate the total inadequacy of the Bible as a science textbook, why base your argument on a solitary dubious case?”

    Obviously it’s not a solitary example. But aside from the excuse that it’s a reader-friendly approximation, in my long ago post I mentioned the absurdity of giving both the diameter and the circumference. With a knowledge of pi, either one would be sufficient.

  19. With a knowledge of pi, either one would be sufficient, provided that the object was a perfect circle in the sense of Euclidean geometry.
    And that assumes knowledge on the part of the audience being addressed, not on the part of the speaker.
    And as far as the absurdity of pleonasm, the Bible is replete with examples, the sort of thing which is so well known as to be the matter of humor: “the Lord told them redundantly to take their sandals from off their feet”.

  20. @Realthog: “So what you’re saying is that scientific textbooks never contain approximations?”
    Good job missing the point of my comment, resulting in a diversion worthy a creationist.

  21. @mnb0
    Sorry, what then was the point of your comment? I’m not being snide: I’m genuinely uncertain.

  22. Ham says he is teaching people how to defend the Bible. But he has hi-jacked the Bible. He is teaching YEC apologetics rather than the Bible itself (much of the time).

  23. mnbo, hi, I’m a Christian. The Bible contains nothing of scientific relevance or, rather, what information it contains that might be relevant is there either coincidentally or purely by accident, like how drinking a bit of wine tends to calm one’s nerves. I think it has relevance as an inspiration to certain scientists, but that’s entirely a different matter.