Kan Ham’s Battle for Morality

Creationists are forever telling us that they point the way to righteousness — and its eternal reward — while science, especially evolution, is believed only because its adherents want to lead immoral lives. The last time we wrote about this was Creationism and Morality, Part 5.

We thought we had pretty much exhausted the subject, but today it’s been raised again by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. His new post is titled Exposing the Connection: How Evolution Impacts Morality. [*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] Hambo is exposing the connection. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

I believe the message of the AiG ministry has been very “prophetic.” Even when I began teaching on creation vs. evolution back in 1975, I was already asserting that atheistic evolution and morality were connected and that, over time, immorality would grow as people rejected God’s Word and accepted evolution. I taught that the more people believed that life arose by natural processes, the more they would also believe that life was ultimately meaningless and purposeless — and morality could be whatever a person determined.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] Immorality and evolution go hand in hand! Hambo says:

Over the decades, evolutionists have often mocked me for tying evolution to morality. They claim that evolution has to do with “science,” not morality. But notice that as generations have been indoctrinated into believing naturalistic evolution, Christian morality has declined. Armed with so-called “science,” secularists have become bolder in opposing Christian morality.

Let us pause for a moment to consider the bible’s morality. It doesn’t oppose slavery. Even in the Ten Commandments, we are instructed not to covet our neighbor’s servants (servant is “slave” in many translations.). Colossians 3:22 says: “Servants [i.e., slaves], obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.” And Leviticus 25:44 says: “Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.” But somehow, Charles Darwin was an ardent advocate of emancipation.

Is the bible opposed to war? To polygamy? Theocracy? Of course not! Even child marriage isn’t forbidden. The bible is a bit ambiguous about rape according to Wikipedia. It does oppose murder and theft — but those prohibitions have been and still are common to virtually all societies. Even evolutionists oppose them — or so it seems to us.

Anyway, Hambo insists that the bible is the source of all morality, while science — especially evolution! — is immoral. He tells us:

In our Western world, we are seeing more and more people (like Bill Nye “the Science Guy”) who boldly claim that evolution is “science” and are using it to promote an anti-Christian worldview. More than ever, secular activists are vehemently opposing Christian morality, such as marriage being between one man and one woman and abortion being murder.

Is that what’s left of bible morality — opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion? Hambo continues:

And we are seeing very amoral and immoral behavior growing across the culture, especially, it seems, among the millennial generation. While we do not argue that evolution directly causes immorality, people can use Darwinian thinking to justify their behavior.

Did you get that? Suddenly, Hambo doesn’t say that evolution directly causes immorality. It merely “justifies” it. Let’s read on:

My point is that there has always been a connection between evolution and morality. Over the years, I’ve heard many evolutionists (like Bill Nye) and even some Christians claim that evolution is all about “science.” They vigorously rejected my insistence that evolution involved a worldview that helps build a relative/subjective morality. That’s why many people were shocked (though I wasn’t at all) when Bill Nye released his new series on Netflix that pushes shocking immorality and is sometimes anti-Christian.

Hambo devotes a few paragraphs to discussing Bill Nye, but we’ll skip that. Then he talks about the writing of Aldous Huxley.. We’ll skip that too. Ah — this is good:

We’ve often said that this worldview struggle is ultimately one that started in the Garden of Eden over 6,000 years ago. It’s a battle between God’s Word and man’s word — a battle between two worldview religions. Answers in Genesis has been involved in this struggle for 23 years. It’s the battle our Creation Museum and Ark Encounter are engaged in.

A struggle. A battle. Hambo is so courageous! Here’s more:

This is why the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter exist. As we answer questions that will point people to the truth of God’s Word, we also clearly present them with the gospel. We’ve never hidden the fact that evangelism is our ultimate purpose — which is why we receive so much opposition from secularists.

He babbles on and on about the bible and all the wonderful books he has for sale. Here’s the last paragraph:

I ask that you pray for the Ark Encounter and Creation Museum outreaches. Everything we do at Answers in Genesis is for the ultimate purpose of sharing the life-changing message of the gospel. And it is through your prayers and support that you are enabling AiG to continue all its many vital outreaches — to impact millions of souls for the kingdom of Christ while countering anti-Christian influences, like Bill Nye.

So there you are, dear reader. It’s a thrill to be alive at the same time as a righteous man like Hambo.

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

22 responses to “Kan Ham’s Battle for Morality

  1. Christine Janis

    “While we do not argue that evolution directly causes immorality, people can use Darwinian thinking to justify their behavior.”

    How, pray, can activities that lower reproductive potential, such as same sex marriage and abortion, be justified by “Darwinian thinking”?

  2. “Let us pause for a moment to consider the bible’s morality.”
    The Bible makes explicitly clear that genocide is OK as long as Ol’Hambo’s god commands it. Given Ol’Hambo’s belief that his god has a plan, that everything happening fits into that plan and that Hitler repeatedly express his belief, who’s Ol’Hambo to deny that his god ordered Hitler to organize the Holocaust?

  3. Frankly, although I am opposed to literal translation of the bible(and therefore creationists) the Ten Commandmants are a pretty good set of rules for establishing a stable society, in my opinion.

  4. The basic blue print for theLIARS4jesus, lying his butt off!!!

  5. Ross Cameron

    I have this theory, unproven of course, as to why the religious get so angry when you question their beliefs. It`s not the challenge they resent, but the fact that, deep, deep down, they think they have been sold a bill of goods, and don`t want it confirmed. What do you think?

  6. “Darwinian thinking being applied to humans” – I assume that means accepting the reality of “microevolution by natural selection within mankind”.

  7. @Ross Cameron — Perhaps. Or maybe, as och will suggests, the ten commandments are a set of rules by which to organize a stable society, and the religionists think the only way it will work is if everyone obeys the ten commandments. The religionists further think that the only way to get the rubes to follow the TCs is sell ’em a bunch of bs about heaven and hell and such, but that only works if no one questions the bs. Scientists are natural questioners of bs, thereby earning the approbation disapproval of the religionists.

    Ham has a different motivation, though. He has a huge monetary interest in having people believe the bs. One gets the feeling he doesn’t give a $#it about morality as long as enough sheeple come through his turnstiles to keep him and his family in high clover. If he were truly interested in morality, he’d focus his efforts on the teachings of Jesus rather than putting his efforts into a “museum” tauting creationism and building a huge, non-floating “boat”. Really — what do his two main attractions have to do with morality, anyway?

    Hamster is a fraud who is in it for the money.

  8. Charles Deetz ;)

    Sorry for not paying much, busy, got married to another guy, took my daughter for another abortion, and the planning meetings for the rituals for the eclipse have really been sapping my time. Now what was Hambo saying about us immoral evolutionists?

  9. Dave Luckett

    Well, on the Decalogue comprising rules for an orderly society… eh, well, maybe somewhat. But…

    One: “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me”. Note, please, that atheists certainly do obey this Commandment. To atheists, all gods are completely equal. Those who obey by putting Yahweh first among gods are polytheists and pagans, while those who say He’s the ONLY God go beyond the scripture, which is supposed to be a no-no. Then there’s the problem of deciding who exactly Yahweh is, and whether you’re worshiping Him, or some other deity. What’s a theist to do?

    Why, what theists have always done: disagree, schism, and have a religious war over it. Not exactly what I’d call a recipe for an orderly society.

    Two: “Thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven image, of anything that is on the Earth… neither shalt thou bow down and worship it”. Well, the first clause makes the second redundant. If there are no “graven images”, nobody can worship one, right? Alas, no. Taken literally – and believe me, some have, and still do – that means that all representative art is outlawed. As for “bowing down and worshiping”, various authorities have extended the word “worship” to mean “to hold in paramount regard”, and have thus wished to denounce any strongly liked activity, other than worshiping (the correct version of) God. For how you decide what is the correct version of God, see above. Same outcome.

    Three: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain”. Well, fair enough. Them’s fightin’ words, or used to be.

    Four: “Remember the Sabbath day, and keep it holy”. But you’re not allowed to fight over which is the Sabbath day. Oh, sorry, my mistake, that last bit isn’t actually in the scripture. One more cause for schism, etcetera, see above.

    Five: “Honor your father and your mother”. No matter what? Um… what if Dad’s been raping my little sister since she was eight? Or Mum’s a crackhead who turns tricks to feed her habit? Do you get up and diss them in court? Hardly honoring them, is it? But orderly societies are just ones. Or so it’s said. And you’re not supposed to witness falsely, see number nine.

    Six: “Do not murder”. No problem with that one.

    Seven: “Do not commit adultery”. Leaving Jesus’s definition of adultery out, I guess this would enhance peace. And, all right, cheating on your partner is bad, fair enough. So OK.

    Eight: “Do not steal.” OK, so long as all cases of theft are treated justly. Only they’re not, as the financial crisis demonstrated.

    Nine: “Do not bear false witness”. Note, please, that it doesn’t say you can never lie – just that when you give formal evidence you can’t. Yes, fair enough, at that.

    Ten: “Do not covet your neighbour’s goods…” Now, here we part brass rags. Like Jesus’s definition of adultery, this introduces the idea of thought crime, and if ever there was a concept destructive of a peaceful and orderly society, that’s one.

    So it’s a pretty mixed bag, for mine. I would be prepared to bet that any hundred citizens since the Enlightenment would be able to come up with a better set.

  10. Dave Luckett beat me to it. I’ll just add that the preamble affirms the myth of a historical Exodus

  11. And the sequel (in exodus) immediately moves on to justifying slavery, and that those born into slavery remain their master’s property

  12. Ceteris Paribus

    Ken Ham doesn’t even begin to understand the biblical Commandments he worships. To start with, the Genesis story itself notes that Moses failed at his first attempt to bring them to his people. And actually, Moses brought down not just 10, but fully 15 commandments carefully carved out on THREE stone tablets.
    The 15 Commandments of Moses

  13. @Charles Deetz; You should have been clearer. I assume when you said you got married to another guy, you actually meant a second guy.

  14. Hey David! how can you violate #3? What is gawd’s name?? And it aint jesus either, as jesus was the EARTHLY person…not gawd!

  15. We’ve often said that this worldview struggle is ultimately one that started in the Garden of Eden over 6,000 years ago.

    You can say anything as often as you please. That doesn’t make it true.

    It’s a battle between God’s Word and man’s word — a battle between two worldview religions.

    “Worldview religions”? Groan.
    Creationsts always want to have it both ways: atheism is against religion, so it shouldn’t be taught in public schools in this here God-fearin’ country, and it is a religion, so it shouldn’t be taught in public schools because that violates the First Amendment. However, in either case, creationism should be taught.

    Answers in Genesis has been involved in this struggle for 23 years. It’s the battle our Creation Museum and Ark Encounter are engaged in.

    You mean the struggle to rip off the rubes with those tourist traps?

  16. On a related note, here’s an item from Americans United on flat earthers and creationism. Ham might agree with them.
    Weird Science: It’s 2017, And Flat-Earth Ideas Are On A Bit Of A Roll

  17. Had Ken Ham noticed that none of the people currently massacring each other in the Middle-East ascribe to Evolution? Incidentally (or not), the moral code in their holy book largely correlates with that in the Bible: no stealing, no gay sex, no killing (unless in holy battle), slavery fine if unbelievers etc.

  18. DavidK says: “On a related note, here’s an item from Americans United on flat earthers and creationism.”

    I’m workin’ on something about that.

  19. Kan Ham:

    “I ask that you pray for the Ark Encounter and Creation Museum outreaches. Everything we do at Answers in Genesis is for the ultimate purpose of sharing the life-changing message of the gospel.”

    I do believe that Mr Ham is trying to prepare us to witness some down ‘n’ dirty, definitely un-Christian behavior by him and AIG as they try to dodge the Williamstown safety tax.

    Be alert for some truly despicable and desperate deeds from that quarter real soon.

  20. Dave Luckett

    L.Long: Good point. God’s title is God, or Adonai, or several other words. When asked His name, He went all coy, saying only “I am that I am”, and any speculation that He is actually Popeye the sailor is unworthy.

    Whatever His name is, it’s actually unsayable, and is represented by four Hebrew letters equivalent (roughly) to YHWH. Best guess is that this is pronounced something like “Yahweh”, but that’s not actually His name, because the letters are a sort of holy algebra, representing an unknown.

    So I guess you can’t take His name in vain, since you don’t know what it is. Probably the ancient Hebrews knew his name, but since it was too holy to say or write, it was lost to future generations – which is an odd thing to happen, if you think about it. But it’s covered by the get out of jail free card available to all theists: “The Lord moves in mysterious ways”. Selah.

  21. The #4 keeping the sabbath holy bit has always been a bit of a puzzle to me. So, God got tired after making the universe and took a day off. That’s pretty weird to begin with, but why would he want his created humans to take a day off? What’s so special about a seventh day? I can’t remember reading anywhere in the bible any sort of explanation of why that commandment makes any sense at all other than Moses claimed God wrote it. Moses should have asked. Presumably, before then, people worked when they needed to and rested when they needed to.