Ken Ham Is a Man of Science

Creationists need to have their own definition of “science” so they can tell their drooling followers that their bizarre beliefs are scientific. No one plays that game better than Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, famed for his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG). He’s the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.

The first time we discussed ol’ Hambo’s personal definition of “science” was in Creationism and Science. He mis-defined the word generally, and then he made an artificial distinction between what he calls “operation science” and “origin science.” Hambo doesn’t object to the former, but he claims the latter is based on “secular assumptions” instead of “biblical assumptions.” The bible, of course, “is the eyewitness testimony of the Creator.”

There is a distinction between the historical sciences (cosmology, geology, climatology, plate tectonics, anthropology, paleontology, and of course evolution) and the “experimental sciences” that can be done in the lab. We can’t re-create the past, but we can study it scientifically. The historical sciences are based on verifiable observations and they produce theories are testable.

The reason Hambo and other creationists make their artificial distinction between historical and observational science is because the former so clearly contradicts the creation account in Genesis. Nevertheless, the claim that our investigations of the past aren’t scientific and can’t be tested is pure nonsense, readily refuted by The Lessons of Tiktaalik.

We discussed the same thing again in Answers in Genesis Explains Science to Us. Hambo mostly repeated himself, but he also informed us:

[M]iracles are possible within the Christian worldview. Naturalistic scientists simply dismiss the possibility of the supernatural. They do this not for logical reasons, but because miracles are incompatible with their beliefs.

We’ve written about Hambo’s distorted definitions a time or two since then, but it’s always the same old song. The only reason Hambo and other creationists make their artificial distinction between historical and observational science is because the former so clearly contradicts the creation account in Genesis.

Well, ol’ Hambo is doing it again. His new post is titled Exposing the Secularists’ Faulty Belief About Science. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

What is science? Well, there’s a lot of misuse of the word by secularists and the popular media. … Now, secularists often misuse the word science when they use it to refer to their molecules-to-man evolution belief, and then also misapply it to refer to technology, which is operational science (observation and repeatable testing). There’s a big difference between knowledge about the past (origins beliefs) and knowledge for building technology! You can’t observe, test, or repeat the past, so historical (or origins) science isn’t the same thing as observational science that can be directly observed, tested, and repeated in the present.

Nothing new there. Then he says:

The media also misuse the word science to claim that creationists are against science. We aren’t against science — AiG loves science, and we have staff with PhDs in various science fields!

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We’ve seen the writings of Hambo’s creation scientists. After that he tells us:

What the media really mean is that they accept secular beliefs — which they’ve labeled science — and reject creation beliefs. Since we don’t agree with their secular beliefs, they believe we must be against science. But we aren’t against science. We’re against an evolutionary, naturalistic interpretation of the evidence that contradicts God’s Word.

Very reasonable. He continues:

Secularists need to admit their faulty beliefs. [Hee hee!] But they don’t want to acknowledge they have any beliefs! They believe life somehow arose by natural processes, and they also believe in an unobservable process of molecules-to-man evolution. Secularists have a religion. They have beliefs about how the universe and life arose, and these beliefs affect how they interpret evidence in the present.

Hambo, of course, isn’t plagued by foolish beliefs about how the universe and life began. He has science on his side! And now we come to the end:

Creationists are more than willing to distinguish between beliefs about origins and observable science that builds our technology. But secularists refuse to admit what are obviously beliefs — they just keep claiming their beliefs are “science.” They make these claims to attempt to brainwash people into believing that molecules-to-man evolution can be proven — which it is most definitely can’t!

You’re the irrational fanatic with religious beliefs, dear reader. Ol’ Hambo is a scientist, all the way.

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

20 responses to “Ken Ham Is a Man of Science

  1. I suppose Ham doesn’t believe in Freudian projection, either.

  2. Our Curmudgeon says “Nevertheless, the claim that our investigations of the past aren’t scientific and can’t be tested is pure nonsense, readily refuted by The Lessons of Tiktaalik.”…………It is true Tiktaalik is a beautiful example of how science works, and, the entire body of work encompassed in geoscience, paleontology and virtually all natural earth sciences slam HamBones bogus fundamentalist religion based claims .Every college student who takes Hisortorical Geology 101 or any of the other earth sciences understands pretty quickly that analysis of the natural world can unlock a huge amount of fascinating information about our Mother Earth. And unless you go to a Bible college that teaches blind dogmatism that you must adhere to it in order to graduate, the laws of nature open up a fascinating new world for the student able to think.
    Thinking is not a Hambo strong point. His Madassas will always hold a certain appeal to the benighted. While those able to use their abilities to analyze will surely succeed in achieving more than the Droolers can ever hope to..

  3. According to Merriam-Webster (I googled):

    Definition of secularism. : indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations.

    Ham opines: Secularists have a religion. They have beliefs about how the universe and life arose, and these beliefs affect how they interpret evidence in the present.

    Reminds me of Trump’s debate quote; “No, you’re the puppet!” When accused of being non-scientific, Ham reflexively responds; “No, you’re non-scientific!” Although he wraps a lot of verbiage around it, it’s still the same school-yard retort.

  4. Curmy, you’re a real trooper to put up with the all creationist nonsense you are exposed to in bringing us this wonderful blog.

    And once again we see evidence that Ken Ham, with his creation “science” is doing the exact opposite of real science.

    Heinlein was right: “Belief gets in the way of learning.”

    Hmmm, that would make a good signature line!

  5. He calls it observational not operational, to Ken it is either observational science or historical science.

  6. If time presents a barrier to knowledge, then so does distance. We cannot perform experiments on the heavens. “How do you know, where you there?” is as irrelevant to our knowledge of the existence of a center of the Earth or planets of the stars.

  7. Because Ham’s position relies on ignorance, his approach to “science” is to close off as many avenues of investigation as possible. Every theory, fact, and datum science produces is a threat to his worldview and must be discounted.

  8. AiG’s statement of faith reads: “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.”

    Ham knows this is a patently anti-science so his only answer is to tu quoque anyone who points it out.

  9. Hans-Richard Grümm

    Ham forgets (or wants us to forget) that all scientific observations are observations of the past – whether it happened 1 millisecond, 8 minutes or 65 million years ago.

  10. Heck, if Ken Ham is a man of science then I’m a man of god. In either case that’s not good for anyone.

  11. “observational science that can be directly observed, tested, and repeated in the present”
    Let me make a direct, testable and repeatable observation. I read this:

    “But we aren’t against science.”
    Then I read AIG’s page on radiometry. Ol’Hambo is against it.
    And I conclude that Ol’Hambo is lying.
    Again.
    And again.

  12. Ham is being disingenuous when he goes on about that “observational” and “historical” science nonesense: An example is shown in forum post.

  13. @Reynold Hall
    The fact that no one was there – that is “historical” science. Those of us who know things about the past, we have no problem with accepting that fact. Those who claim that there is a barrier against knowledge of the past, they cannot consistently claim to know that there is such a barrier.

    But if they claim that there is a barrier to knowing about the past because we weren’t there to see it and repeat it, then isn’t there also a barrier to knowing about places which are to far to get to, or too difficult, or too dangerous. How do we know that there are stars – we haven’t been there? How could we claim to know in the 19tn century that there was a Solar System – did that only become real science when we sent rockets?

    Actually, I could make the claim that the most useful science is the science of things which we cannot directly observe. We don’t need science to know about things which are easy to see.

  14. Hmmm, still chasing your imaginevolutionary tails i see. It’s called running round in circles. Pointless.

  15. michaelfugate

    like your comment?

  16. michaelfugate

    When Genesis says they were created male and female – it doesn’t say if it is physically or mentally or both.

  17. There is an old interpretation of created male and female as hermaphrodite.

  18. TomS notes

    There is an old interpretation of created male and female as hermaphrodite.

    Which restroom did they use in North Carolina, then?

  19. [M]iracles are possible within the Christian worldview. Naturalistic scientists simply dismiss the possibility of the supernatural. They do this not for logical reasons, but because miracles are incompatible with their beliefs.

    Evolution is possible within the “naturalistic” worldview. Creationists simply dismiss the possibility of evolution, preferring the idea of vaguely-defined “adaptation” within conveniently-defined “kinds.” They do this not for logical reasons, but because evolution is incompatible with their beliefs.

    Miracles, by definition, are events which occur in defiance of natural law. The “naturalistic” worldview holds that all events ae consistent with natural law, and that any which seem otherwise merely reflect either our incomplete knowledge of the events or our imperfect understanding of the natural law, both of which can be overcome. Which of the two has had a more positive effect on our understanding of the physical universe?

  20. Evolution is possible within the Christian or other religious worldviews. Creationists simply dismiss the possibility of evolution, preferring an undefined “design”.

    Events in defiance of natural law are incompatible with design,
    unless natural laws are not designed.

    It is impossible to talk according to creationist worldview without paradox.