Ken Ham and the March for Science

You’ve probably heard about the March for Science scheduled for 22 April. Their website says:

The March for Science demonstrates our passion for science and sounds a call to support and safeguard the scientific community. Recent policy changes have caused heightened worry among scientists. The incredible and immediate outpouring of support has made clear that these concerns are also shared by the support of hundreds of thousands of people around the world.

The mischaracterization of science as a partisan issue, which has given policymakers permission to reject overwhelming evidence, is a critical and urgent matter. It is time for people who support scientific research and evidence-based policies to take a public stand and be counted.

We’re aware of the political message, but it doesn’t bother us. However, the event has captured the attention of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, who ceaselessly promotes himself as the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. This appears at his website: March for Science Coming to Washington, DC.

After briefly describing the event, ol’ Hambo says, with bold font added by us for emphasis

Their website states a variety of interesting things about their mission and principles. Now, they are careful with their wording and don’t really come out as against any particular position. But statements sprinkled across the site like “reject overwhelming evidence” or “peer-reviewed evidence and scientific consensus” suggest they are targeting those who deny evolutionary ideas and human-caused climate change.

Hambo suspects he’s being targeted. Then he quotes the group’s statement: “Science should neither serve special interests nor be rejected based on personal convictions. At its core, science is a tool for seeking answers.” Regarding that, Hambo says:

This highlights a fundamental problem — they don’t recognize the difference between observational and historical science. Science is indeed “a tool for seeking answers,” but, when it comes to the past, what you believe about the past determines your interpretation. Scientists can’t be entirely neutral. Historical science always comes with “special interests” and “personal convictions” about the past.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s Hambo’s personal version of science which he developed to exclude anything that doesn’t agree with the bible. We’ve discussed it in Common Creationist Claims Confuted.

After that, Hambo quotes the group again: “We support science education that teaches children and adults to think critically, ask questions, and evaluate truth based on the weight of evidence.” Outraged, he asks:

Would they encourage and support teaching the (many!) problems with evolutionary science in the classroom? Would they encourage students to be allowed to compare the evolutionary and biblical creation interpretations of the evidence to see which better supports the evidence? I don’t think so.

The group talks about its diversity. Hambo isn’t fooled by that either. He rages:

Again, by diverse perspectives do they mean creationists? Do they really encourage up-and-coming young creationists to add to the discussion? No, they don’t. … Diversity is great — unless you are a Christian who stands on the authority of God’s Word and believes in a literal Genesis. Then your views are probably not welcome.

Hambo is insulted. He finishes his rant with this:

Creationists love science! [Hee hee!] But, sadly, much of science today is controlled by an atheistic, naturalistic worldview. We reject this worldview and anything that goes against the inerrant Word of God, but that doesn’t mean we hate science. It means we trust the eyewitness account of the Creator who never lies, over the sinful, fallible, ever-changing opinions of man.

And so we leave Hambo. He’s furious. Those fools running the March for Science don’t appreciate him. Ah well, he’ll have the last laugh when he’s sitting on his fluffy cloud, and those so-called scientists are boiling in the Lake of Fire.

Copyright © 2017. 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

19 responses to “Ken Ham and the March for Science

  1. We’re aware of the political message, but it doesn’t bother us.

    It perhaps should. These people are trying to mount a defense against what you and Hambo, shoulder-to-shoulder, voted for.

  2. Creationists love science! [Hee hee!] But, sadly, much of science today is controlled by an atheistic, naturalistic worldview. We reject this worldview and anything that goes against the inerrant Word of God, but that doesn’t mean we hate science. It means we trust the eyewitness account of the Creator who never lies, over the sinful, fallible, ever-changing opinions of man.

    And you know, Rev. Hamhock, that the Bible actually is the “eyewitness account” of God? How? The Creation story is told in the third person, like most fiction, not in the first person, as an eyewitness account would be.

    Oh, and realthog, let’s not insult the Curmudgeon by placing him “shoulder to shoulder” with the Hamster. I seriously doubt our gracious host voted for Donald Trump (assuming he did) for the same reasons Ham did.

    Moving on:

    Hambo suspects he’s being targeted. Then he quotes the group’s statement: “Science should neither serve special interests nor be rejected based on personal convictions. At its core, science is a tool for seeking answers.” Regarding that, Hambo says:

    This highlights a fundamental problem — they don’t recognize the difference between observational and historical science. Science is indeed “a tool for seeking answers,” but, when it comes to the past, what you believe about the past determines your interpretation. Scientists can’t be entirely neutral. Historical science always comes with “special interests” and “personal convictions” about the past.

    No, the fundamental problem is that Ken Ham, like other creationists, doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “observational” as it pertains to science. Any and all study of the past and matters related to it is “historical,” but it involves observation as well–of records, artifacts, geological formations, etc., etc. Sometimes even fossils–imagine that!

  3. I seriously doubt our gracious host voted for Donald Trump (assuming he did)

    He told us he did.

  4. Sorry, I accidentally misquoted:

    I seriously doubt our gracious host voted for Donald Trump (assuming he did) for the same reasons Ham did.

    Our host indeed told us that he voted for Trump. When you vote for a politician, I don’t think it’s reasonable simply to opt out of some of the policies that you thereby voted for. Up front and center stage of Trump’s platform was science denial (and very much else that’s vile). A vote for Trump was a vote for Pruitt (or a Pruitt clone) — that’s what we filthy hippy socialists warned was the case, were told it wasn’t true, and guess what. And so on all the way down the science-denialist roster.

  5. “sadly, much of science today is controlled by an atheistic, naturalistic worldview.”

    Hmmm, searching the various actual science sites available on the web I was unable to find a single supernatural science peer reviewed paper. What am I doing wrong?

    “We reject this worldview and anything that goes against the inerrant Word of God”

    But there are soooo many gods available and they contradict each other and reality so much – how do we determine which one is the one true god and is actually inerrant?

    “Our host indeed told us that he voted for Trump.”

    Some people will always fail to recognize when they are part of the problem.

  6. exclude anything that doesn’t agree with the bible
    Rather exclude things that doesn’t agree with him. If the Bible doesn’t agree with him, there are escape clauses. “Obviously figurative”. Such as the geocentric model of the heavens, even though no one noticed that – supposedly obvious – before modern science. No one has been there, much beyond the Moon, so how do we know that the Sun is not orbiting the Earth, as the Bible says? Are we supposed to take the word of about 20 people who have been about as far as the Moon over the word of the Bible? (And how many of them have told us that?)
    On the other hand, where does the Bible say that there is a barrier between “kinds” – or where does the Bible say what a “kind” is (something like a taxonomic family), or that there is a “kind” of humans? So “how does he know, was he there” to see anything about super-fast micro-evolution within “kinds”, when the Bible doesn’t say anything about that?

  7. Eric Lipps says:

    Oh, and realthog, let’s not insult the Curmudgeon by placing him “shoulder to shoulder” with the Hamster.

    No problem. I understand and can tolerate some emotional reaction to an election loss. I doubt that it will become a permanent distraction.

  8. “what you believe about the past determines your interpretation”.
    Exactly. And my belief determines that Ol’Hambo is not human, because he was put in a cauliflower by aliens, found there by a stork who delivered him in his crib. That happened in the past, remember?

  9. Ceteris Paribus

    Hambo ominously warns:

    “Creationists love science! But, sadly, much of science today is controlled by an atheistic, naturalistic worldview. “

    What? Wait a minute. Sounds familiar. Oh!! “Atheistic. Naturalistic. World. View.” or: “A.N.W.V”. That rhymes with “C.H.U.D” !

    So obviously Hambo is going to soon release a Science Fiction horror movie based on the original 1984 box office hit. If you didn’t see it back then, watch the trailer to see what Hambo will probably bring to the screen to terrify all his godly little girls and boys at the Ark Park theater.
    “C.H.U.D.”

    .

  10. Our Curmudgeon declares

    I understand and can tolerate some emotional reaction to an election loss.

    Speaking only for myself: in normal times, my American friends/family split pretty evenly between the two main parties (which makes for lively Thanksgiving get-togethers), but this time around it was basically a three-way split between:

    [1] Lifelong Republicans who voted Republican: only 3 (of 12) were positive enthusiasts for The Donald, the others were disappointed a different candidate hadn’t emerged for the GOP, but voted the party ticket out of greater loathing for Clinton

    [2] Lifelong Democrats who voted Democrat: only 4 (of 13) were keen to put Clinton in the White House, the remainder voted party ticket because they loathed The Donald

    [3] 4 Republicans and 6 Democrats who stayed home or voted 3rd party on the grounds that both Trump and Clinton were too repulsive.

    And one outlier: a distant cousin who was fanatical for Bernie but ended up voting for The Donald.

    So: I think it misleading to suppose the grumbles about Trump are fuelled solely or even primarily by ’emotional reaction to an election loss.’

    It’s an intellectual reaction to Trump’s win. 🙂

  11. Just askin’
    About the primaries. Who voted in the primary? And who didn’t?

  12. I didn’t vote in the Republican primary, because I didn’t care for any of the then-remaining candidates.

  13. Ham had an encounter with evidence-based science. In February 2014 when debating Bill Nye. He firmly pushed the science away. And has continued to do so ever since, including in July 2016 when he met Nye again. So why should those behind this planned march seek to embrace science rejecting creationists like Ham in an attempt to increase diversity within the science community (not that they have banned creationists from er joining the planned march if they wish to, as far as I know).

  14. Ah, dear Ashley, you forget about the famous Creacrap Gambit: science is what Ol’Hambo defines as science. And Evolution Theory is not science. So Ol’Hambo by definition didn’t push any science away.

  15. Trump may or not be a creationist (Donald Ducklips probably doesn’t know the difference, anyway), but his VP Pence is certainly a creationist, and vehemently anti-evolution at that.

    And then there are Trump’s cabinet appointees — Education Secretary DeVos is absolutely anti-evolution; EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is avowedly a climate-change denier; and Energy Secretary Rick Perry is in the same boat with both of them.

    How did we get into such a fix?

  16. @mnbo
    Anything is what I say it is. Science is what I say it is. What the Bible says is what I say it is. Religion is what I say it is. Atheism is what I say it is. Evidence is what I say it is. Evolution is what I say it is. etc. etc. etc.

  17. mnbo Though Ham pushes away man-caused climate change science – it’s happening NOW and based upon observation and measurement as well as acquired knowledge of physics.

  18. That is unlike evolution man-caused climate change is not so-called ‘historical science’ (nor ‘disproven’ in the Bible).

  19. Evolution is an example of how the distinction between “historical science” and “observational science” is not helpful (to put it politely).
    Evolution is not confined to the distant past, but is a process which is ongoing in the world of life, always and everywhere. And evolution is not mentioned in the Bible, neither positively or negatively, for the concepts involved would be anachronistic in the Ancient Near East.