A Classic Rant from Ken Ham

We love to blog about Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, because there’s no other place on the internet where you can find entertainment like his latest post: Secularists Are Afraid for Children to Learn the Truth about Creation. Isn’t that a great title? We’re afraid that children will learn The Truth. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Secularists fear when Answers in Genesis overcomes censorship and exposes school kids to evidence for creation and against evolution. You could even say these secularists throw tantrums when myself or our AiG scientists expose the lie of evolution and millions of years to the world and teach the truth of creation.

We always imagine that when Hambo is ranting like this, he’s red in the face, foaming at the mouth, and rolling around chewing the carpet. But here he’s saying that we’re the ones who throw tantrums. You gotta love it! Then he says:

Christians are happy to teach children about the various views of origins, but many atheists want children taught naturalism to the exclusion of all other views. My kids know more about evolution than most evolutionists — we’re not afraid to teach them about how to understand different views.

We don’t want to think about what goes on in the minds of Hambo’s kids. After that he tells us:

Atheists are afraid for people to think critically about origins since people would then understand that evolution is a religion.

[*Groan*] Not that again. See Hambo Says Evolution Is a Religion. By the way, Hambo uses the words “secularist,” “atheist,” and “evolutionist” interchangeably. It’s all the same to him. The rant continues:

Notice how insecure atheists are? They can’t have their belief critically analyzed, so they legislate to protect it in public schools. Atheists are so insecure that they don’t want anyone seeing nativity scenes, crosses, or any other Christian symbol for fear that people might start thinking for themselves.

You’re insecure, dear reader. Let’s read on:

Many secularists demand that no one acknowledge God in public places so they can impose their atheistic religion on the culture instead of allowing the free exercise of religion. The “separation of church and state” nonsense is nothing but a ruse by secularists to impose atheism on the education system and the culture. Where is the phrase “separation of church and state” in the First Amendment?

[*Groan*] We’ve pointed out a few times before that “checks and balances” doesn’t appear in the text of the Constitution either, nor does “limited government,” or “federal republic,” or “popular sovereignty,” or many other phrases that are nevertheless routinely used to accurately describe the Constitution. So it is with “separation of church and state.” When Hambo raised that same issue earlier, we wrote Ken Ham Unhinged: Creationism & Theocracy Too, in which we quoted letters from James Madison, the man who drafted the First Amendment, stating that the absolute separation of ecclesiastical and civil authorities was the Amendment’s purpose. But Madison’s opinion is nothing compared to Hambo’s. Here’s another excerpt from his rant:

Atheism is a faith that doesn’t make sense of the world and is not supported by observational science. It’s a blind-faith religion. For Christians, we believe “by faith,” yes, but it’s a faith that makes sense of what we observe and is confirmed by observational science. Those who reject creation are without excuse because God has made it evident to all that He created the universe and all life [scripture reference].

Hambo’s faith makes sense, and it’s confirmed by science. But you, dear reader, are an idiot. Here’s more

When you ask a secularist to list their evidence that the laws of nature arose by natural processes, they have no answer! These laws were created by God.

[*Groan*] The laws of nature are descriptions of the natural world, based on observation. They didn’t “arise” by some process. Things exist. They are what they are and behave as they do, rather than miraculously being what they are not and behaving some other way. It’s the creationist’s world of miracles that can’t be explained.

Hambo goes on with still more things secularists can’t explain:

Ask evolutionists for the best evidence for evolution — they’ll give you some story and will usually point to speciation (which is not evolution!). Try to get a secularist to explain how life with its DNA could have arisen by natural processes — they’ll give you some story, but they can’t explain it. Actually most evolutionists don’t really know why they believe what they do; they just regurgitate what they were indoctrinated in at school.

But Hambo can explain everything. The explanation is Oogity Boogity! You gotta be an idiot not to see it. Here’s one more excerpt:

Do you notice how irrational, illogical, inconsistent, and emotional many secularists get on social media when confronted with God’s infallible Word? That’s because it’s a spiritual battle!

Okay, that’s enough. We thank ol’ Hambo for a very entertaining Sunday rant.

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

24 responses to “A Classic Rant from Ken Ham

  1. Do you notice how irrational, illogical, inconsistent, and emotional many secularists get on social media when confronted with God’s infallible Word? That’s because it’s a spiritual battle!

    I don’t know, irrational, illogical, inconsistent, and emotional are the words best used to describe the likes of Hambo and his inspired silliness. Beyond stupid and almost criminal are some other words I can use to describe his ministry.

  2. About the only thing sadder [and more disgusting] than Ham is that a very large number of people believe he speaks the truth.

  3. They can’t have their belief critically analyzed, so they legislate to protect it in public schools.
    That’s why all these right-wing republican legislatures, in conjunction with Ham and/or the Dishonesty Institute, are passing their “freedom of speech” and “freedom of religious expression” laws to ensure that they have legal rights to pawn their gibberish off on the poor students.

  4. Ham says: “My kids know more about evolution than most evolutionists.

    Oh and I’m sure all that is 100% accurate information too. No misrepresentations or misunderstandings at all…

  5. Michael Fugate

    But I thought evolution was the truth about creation – so see Ken I am not afraid of the truth, are you?

  6. “to list their evidence that the laws of nature arose by natural processes”
    The natural laws that can be found in Newton’s Principia Mathematica were thought up and penned down by natural processes only.
    In fact any scientific textbook is.
    In fact that applies to the internet creacrap called AIG as well.

  7. How can we make something like this clear about creationism:
    To say that something is intelligently designed, or created, or the product of the supernatural, does not tell us anything about the ways things are.
    If someone wonders about the smile on the Mona Lisa, “it is intelligently designed” does not answer the question.
    If someone wonders about the sculptures on Mount Rushmore, and whether they different from the trees and ants, to say that all of those are intelligently designed, what kind of difference is there?
    If someone wonders why insects all have one kind of eyes, while vertebrates have another kind of eyes, and trees have no kind of eyes, how does creation help us to understand?
    We know that a perpetual motion machine would violate the laws of thermodynamics, and that an appeal to intelligent design would not work in producing a perpetual motion machine. How, then if life would violate some law of nature, why would anyone think of an appeal to intelligent design?
    There is no point to dreaming up supposed difficulties to evolution.

  8. Ayatollah HamBone says “My kids know more about evolution than most evolutionists — we’re not afraid to teach them about how to understand different views.”
    The first question that arises when I read this was this. Who the heck would marry Hammy? The second is, how bizarre was THAT honeymoon ?
    Eek.

  9. “My kids know more about evolution than most evolutionists”

    Oh come on Ken, we know from the 990 they are all part of the family scam.

  10. Ross Cameron

    The sooner that biologists studying the brain locate the delusion zone, the sooner we can offer surgery to remove or correct it. Or will atheists be accused of terminating the opposition?

  11. Hambo is being very disingenuous here. Hambo has a two tier treatment of evolution. For the uneducated Hamboite evolution is spurned as “evilution” the mere mention of the word strikes fist shaking and chewing of the carpet. For the educated Hamboite, like one of Hambo’s PhDs, there is the second tier of Biblical treatment of evolution. Not only did it happen, it happened in a rapid burst of speciation as the kinds came off the ark to form the vast array of species we have today. Hambo’s PhDs are obtuse to this being the result of any genetic innovation, instead it is all subtractions from the original perfect kinds.
    Of course there is no evidence for Hambo’s “forest of evolution” (rather than the standard single tree of evolution), but it is unclear which Biblical narrative Hambo would want taught in public schools.

  12. There is no Biblical basis for the “forest of evolution”. No acceptance of “micro”-evolution, and no barrier against “macro”-evolution.

  13. Dave Luckett

    For me, the most telling and disgusting sentence in that entire rant was this:

    “The “separation of church and state” nonsense is nothing but a ruse by secularists to impose atheism on the education system and the culture. ”

    So, it’s nonsense to separate church and state. The one should be part of the other.

    But by “church” Ham means his church, the one true church. Ham operates under his own authority alone. He used to belong to an actual sect but quarreled with them and left to found his own, where nobody can disagree with him. The one true church is the one he operates, and no other.

    So this is not only a straightforward and overt espousal of theocracy. That would be bad enough. We would be ruled by God’s elect. But who are God’s elect? Why, the leaders of the one true church, of course.

    So what Ken Ham actually means is that he thinks we should be ruled by him.

    Now, of course Ham’s a posturing pipsqueak, with less significance than dandruff. In your dreams, Ken, as we say in my country. But his latest explosion of effluvia is evidence of increasing megalomania, which implies an increasing disconnect from reality. Reality was never Ken’s strong suit, but I find myself wondering how far he has to stray from it before even his underlings start giving him funny looks.

  14. I once thought that there were limits beyond which people would start giving funny looks.

  15. “When you ask a secularist to list their evidence that the laws of nature arose by natural processes, they have no answer! These laws were created by God.” This is just the old argument from design, which Darwin himself found attractive.. For a deist, the laws are what they are, because of the will of God. For an atheist or agnostic, we do not (or do not yet) know why they are what they are, or indeed if there *is* a reason for this. The tactic is related to the deliberate confusion between the idea of God as overall creator, and separate creation of species, on the grounds that both can carry the label “creationism”.

    For this and more, if I were, myself, a religious believer, I would regard Ham as a blasphemer.

    Ham’s rhetorical trick is to muddle up this perfectly sane, if not all that convincing, philosophical argument with a completely different question of the origins of biological diversity.

    And does even Ham really believe that speciation is not evolution? One wonders what would then count as evolution, by his standards.

  16. Moreover, for a theist[sic], the ways and purposes of God are not knowable. That God creates all things does not answer the question as to how or why things are the way they are.
    Also:
    “This proof can at most, therefore, demonstrate the existence of an architect of the world, whose efforts are limited by the capabilities of the material with which he works, but not of a creator of the world, to whom all things are subject.” Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (A 627, B 655)

  17. Michael Fugate

    I wonder what Ham’s evolution curriculum is like. Does anyone imagine it approaches anything resembling scientific understanding?

  18. You probably don’t want to miss the Mega Creation Event!!
    https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/uk-creation-mega-conference-inspiring-a-genesis-reformation-tickets-26517144493

    Or State-side: http://www.creationicc.org/ Kinda tempting to attend just to hear all of the delusional presenters.

  19. So Ken wants kids to be able to think critically… I think we should help him by teaching critical thinking in schools.

    Somehow, I think he would object to that.

  20. Just falsely redefine what ‘science’ is (and isn’t) and then you can spout this kind of untruthful garbage every week of the year:
    https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2017/03/26/christians-are-compromising-religion-secularism/
    “Are science and faith in conflict? No! Observational science confirms the Bible’s history in Genesis and doesn’t confirm the religion of evolution.” (Note the bold type, which I cannot reproduce, from this false prophet.)

    Bottom line. Christians who are not young earth creationist zealots (like Ham) have ‘no’ scientific reason to believe anything different to them about the past. And not only that! They are also attacking the word of God! Ken hates the way these Christians behave. They are not listening to him but to SCIENTISTS.

  21. And somebody is doing something dodgy. “they have a religion, and they impose that religion on the evidence”.

    I will leave other readers to guess WHO is doing that:
    https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2017/03/27/religion-key-human-evolution/

    It couldn’t be this bloke could it: “If there really was a global flood you would find billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth…”.

  22. Ham saith:

    Ask evolutionists for the best evidence for evolution — they’ll give you some story and will usually point to speciation (which is not evolution!).

    I’m so sick of this rhetorical trick, which is perhaps best understood if stated this way: “Any change which can be proved to happen, or to have happened, is by definition not evolution.” So if speciation is known to occur–and even most creationists grudgingly acknowledge that it does–it doesn’t really prove evolution. Show me a molecule turning into a man . . . !

  23. My guess is that most people would answer one of these two ways, even people who would say that they “believe in evolution”:
    Evolution is monkeys turning into man.
    Evolution is about what gave rise to fossils.