Ken Ham: Creation Science Is Real Science

This is a moderately thought-provoking item from 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.

The title of Hambo’s latest is Can Creation Scientists Do Real Science? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Creation scientists are often accused of not being “real” scientists because they supposedly don’t publish in secular journals.

[*Groan*] Let’s get this straight. So-called creation science isn’t science, so of course it doesn’t get published in science journals. However, if a creationist stays away from that young-Earth, Noah’s Ark stuff and does some real science, that could get published in a respectable journal. Then Hambo says:

But then anything that even hints at a Creator God — let alone a biblical view of a young earth, special creation, or global Flood — is censored and will probably never be published because it contradicts the prevailing mindset. Secular scientists are incredibly inconsistent in their accusation.

Yes, secular scientists censor that creation stuff, then they say creationists aren’t scientists because their work is censored. It’s so unfair! After that he tells us:

In a recent interview, Dr. Danny Faulkner, an astronomer here at Answers in Genesis, responded to the claim that creationists can’t be scientists. Dr. Faulkner holds a PhD in astronomy and taught astronomy and physics for over 26 years at the University of South Carolina Lancaster before he “retired” to come to AiG. Here’s his response to the secular claim about creation scientists.

Hambo doesn’t mention that Danny’s undergraduate degree is from Bob Jones University, and that he had to sign the Statement of Faith Hambo requires from everyone who works for AIG. Anyway, here’s what Danny says:

Some people want to make this arbitrary distinction that you have to buy into the metaphysical assertion that there is nothing more than the physical world. In his book and TV show Cosmos, the late Carl Sagan began with this very famous statement: “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” And many people hearing that think that’s a very profound scientific statement, but there’s not a bit of science in that — it’s a very broad, bold assertion of his worldview. It’s a denial of anything other than the physical.

Danny’s right. Sagan’s statement is an arbitrary denial of Oogity Boogity! He continues:

But you can’t know that as a scientist. You can believe that, and you can assume that. But it’s an assumption, a belief, a faith statement. Now people say it’s not religious — but it’s a faith statement of no faith, so it is a faith statement.

Hey — he’s right again. What Sagan says is “a faith statement of no faith.” Let’s read on:

They’re trying to say, “Well, science is all physical, all natural” since it involves studying the physical world using the five senses. But that does not mean that it is the only reality.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh — that is so profound! [*End Drool Mode*] Another excerpt:

Do we conduct our science usually [Hee hee!] without invoking miracles? Yes! That’s because the world exists and that’s what we’re trying to model. There’s a certain pattern and regularity to the way the world works, and science studies that; but that doesn’t mean the world has always worked that way or always will. I can’t prove scientifically that miracles have happened, and I can’t prove scientifically that they haven’t happened.

Some miracles can be disproved, and the others are irrelevant to science — see The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Miracles. Here’s more

There’s no incompatibility at all between belief in science and belief in God and in Christianity. And I’m not the only person saying that! The person who literally wrote the book on physics and astronomy, and who invented calculus, was Sir Isaac Newton. And he wrote ten times more on theology and the Bible than he did on math and science. So if you are going to take that approach, you just kicked one of the greatest scientists of all time to the curb because he can’t be a scientist.

Ah yes, Newton. It’s true that he spent most of his time on theological matters — and all of that was scientifically worthless. One last excerpt from Danny:

What those kinds of tactics tell me is just how vacuous and depraved their worldview is. … It’s an attempt to stiff-arm people to get them to ascribe to their secular faith system.

Are you paying attention? Danny says that your worldview is “vacuous and depraved.” Now ol’ Hambo chimes in at the end:

There are many gifted and highly qualified scientists both from history and present day who are biblical creationists. Nothing about believing in and starting with God’s Word disqualifies someone from being a scientist.

If that doesn’t convince you, dear reader, then you have a problem. It’s your vacuous and depraved worldview.

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

15 responses to “Ken Ham: Creation Science Is Real Science

  1. So Newton produced naturalist science which we kept and remember him for, and theological meanderings which proved useless (even the Church seemed to think so) and were forgotten.

    So which part of Newton’s thinking was ‘vacuous’?

  2. Michael Fugate

    Just because some creationists have done science, doesn’t mean creationism is science.

  3. Ross Cameron

    You can`t go past Dr. Andrew Snelling as a prime example of straddling fences. On one hand he writes scientific articles extolling radiocarbon dating, then he does the creo shuffle and attacks RCD in a certain religious publication. Must be like quite a few priests who bless you and screw you in the same week.
    http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm

  4. What those kinds of tactics tell me is just how vacuous and depraved their worldview is. … It’s an attempt to stiff-arm people to get them to ascribe to their secular faith system.
    While AIG et al. do nothing but “attempt to stiff-arm people to get them to ascribe to their [religious belief] system.”

    The pot calling the kettle black much?

  5. Easy to get me on your side Ken! FInd and do something useful, like real science, and then you can be taken seriously!

  6. No, no, no, no! It isn’t about what you believe. It never has been. It is about evidence. Notice Hambone nor his minions mention this. Evidence. That it why the supernatural is discarded, because there is no evidence. It has nothing to do with what you believe. That is the lie that creationists must tell.

  7. Dave Luckett

    It’s no good impugning Dr Faulkner’s credentials or qualifications. He was good enough to teach astronomy at a State University. His assertions should be demolished from the assertions themselves.

    The reaction to his “I can’t prove scientifically that miracles have happened, and I can’t prove scientifically that they haven’t happened” should be cheerful agreement, followed by the statement that science consists of close observation and measurement of things that can be shown to have occurred. On his own account, then, science can’t study miracles. Fortunately, science need not study miracles to account for the Earth and life on it. Miracles need not be invoked for that.

    His assertion, “There are many gifted and highly qualified scientists both from history and present day who are biblical creationists” should be disproven from facts and evidence. Any large population, including the population of all scientists, has extreme outliers, but there are vanishingly few “Biblical creationist” scientists, and almost none at all working in relevant fields. Dr Faulkner’s assertion is simply false.

    Newton should be acknowledged as a great scientist, and the transcendent genius that he was. But perhaps Dr Faulkner could give an account of the acceptance of his theology in modern Christianity? He was a convinced Unitarian, you see. He also spent many years in pursuit of alchemical transformation of metals: the Philosopher’s Stone. Possibly Dr Faulkner can point to the profound influence this work has had on modern chemistry.

    So much for the defense. Having disposed of the assertions, one can go over to the attack. That, of course, is a different department.

  8. When creationists devise instruments and methods to study the supernatural, then perhaps the study of the supernatural will become science.

    Of course, if the supernatural exists, it may be very different from anything imagined by fallible man’s religions. Perhaps it would be best if “creation scientists” avoided actually trying to study it, and stuck with reading ancient stories. Much safer that way.

  9. Curious that they are so hung up about Carl Sagan’s initial line in the Cosmos series: “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” They insist on interpreting this as “a denial of anything other than the physical”, but as I have pointed out before, Sagan is really just saying: “Here we will use the word ‘cosmos’ to denote the sum total of all that exists.” Whether or not that grand sum total includes one or more gods he didn’t comment on at all. If there are any gods, their existence cannot be detected by scientific means, so inevitably they will not receive much mention in this particular series. But Carl Sagan never equated “the cosmos” with “the physical”.

  10. Our dear SC largely neglected this:

    “Some people want to make this arbitrary distinction that you have to buy into the metaphysical assertion that there is nothing more than the physical world.”
    It can’t be stressed enough: this is a filthy lie. The metaphysical position is that the scientific method can be applied to the physical world only. Coincidentally I talked with my pupils about this issue just yesterday. These 14, 15 years old got it immediately.

  11. Some people want …. just about any thing.
    Some people want to believe that there is only the supernatural. Some people are solipsists. Some people are Last Thursdayists.

  12. Warren Johnson

    Ken Ham fails to notice the extreme gyrations that Danny Faulkner goes through to discredit one of the most firmest of conclusions of modern astronomy: the universe is many billions of years old. Faulkner phrases it as “the starlight problem”, and discusses a bunch of crazy creationist theories that try to explain why the light travel time from distant stars could really be 6000 years, instead of the millions or billions of years that astronomer measure. My favorite crazy theory is Jason Lisle’s “asymmetric light speed” theory, which was disproved in the 1670’s by Ole Rømer, who made the first measurements of the speed of light, light coming from distant objects (Jupiter and it’s moons). You’d think that the “astronomers” (Faulkner and Lisle) would at least know astronomy before 1700, but you would be wrong.

  13. One category of thing that they are not aware of is history. History of their own ideas, history of Christianity, as well as history of science. You point out the history of science, how science came to know stuff like the great ages of things – people didn’t come to know that kind of stuff because they wanted to believe that, not because of some perverted desire to prove the Bible wrong. They did not start out with the Earth being about few billion years old. On the other hand, people did not up believing in baraminology as a way of following that old time religion, because they read about it in the Bible – it is very much a new-fangled belief, generated in the 20th century.

  14. In his book and TV show Cosmos, the late Carl Sagan began with this very famous statement: “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”

    Ham sniffs at that, apparently because he wants people to believe there are things beyond the cosmos. But Sagan’s statement wasn’t dogma but rather definition, and amounted to saying that the cosmos consists of everything that exists.

    He rabbits on:

    I can’t prove scientifically that miracles have happened, and I can’t prove scientifically that they haven’t happened.

    But then, by the rules of science, miracles have to be assumed not to have occurred, pending the discovery of evidence that they have.

    And that isn’t going to happen, since if something occurs which seems to violate the laws of nature as we understand them, that only proves our understanding is incomplete, not that something literally supernatural has happened. Even radioactivity seemed to violate the law of conservation of energy when it was discovered, until Einstein showed that our formulation of separate conservation laws for matter and energy was incorrect, and thus that radioactivity was natural after all.

  15. How can we by understanding the laws of nature show that both (1) the laws of nature are fine-tuned to make that life possible and (2) the laws of nature show that life cannot arise by nature alone?