Ken Ham Says Evolution Makes No Sense

We have another creationist gem from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. His new post is titled Did Humans Domesticate Ourselves? Good question, huh? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

The story (or fairy tale) of how evolution occurred is always changing. It seems every news item carries a different story from the previous one! For example, evolution is supposed to be “survival of the fittest,” with the toughest and strongest surviving and the weak dying out — unless it’s not. Let me explain.

That paragraph needs a whole lot of explaining! Hambo says:

According to new studies, “tameness” was supposedly selected for in human evolution, resulting in genetic changes as we “domesticated” ourselves. One researcher suggests that over the last alleged 200,000 years “humans began acquiring skills which would have allowed early humans to gang up against bullies. . . . Those who got along, got ahead.”

He links to this article in Science News: How humans (maybe) domesticated themselves, which — of course — makes no reference to Hambo’s “survival of the fittest” definition of evolution. But he has even more news about the foolishness of evolution. He tells us:

So it’s survival of the fittest, except when, according to a different study, it’s survival of the prettiest, survival of the most moral, or the survival of the least aggressive (according to these studies). It’s a constantly changing story because it’s just that — a story.

For that paragraph, Hambo links to an article in the New York Times: Challenging Mainstream Thought About Beauty’s Big Hand in Evolution. Having convincingly demonstrated that evolution is just a bunch of crazy nonsense that is always changing its story, he continues:

And if bullies supposedly died out as we “tamed” ourselves — why are there still so many bullies? If “those who got along, got ahead,” how do you explain the many brutal dictators (such as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini) and others throughout history who got ahead by killing people? Human history is not a story of increasing peace and harmony as we have supposedly learned to get along. It’s a story littered with evil and bullies — and the tale continues.

We thought guys like Hitler and Stalin were Darwin’s fault — see AIG: Darwin = Hitler, Stalin, Abortion, etc.. But then, suddenly, that’s no longer true. Let’s read on:

From a biblical perspective, this view makes sense. God’s original creation was perfect, but mankind sinned against God. We now have a sin nature. Humanity isn’t getting progressively better — we started out perfect, but sin tainted that, and it has tainted mankind ever since [scripture reference].

So where are we? Hambo says evolutionists are always changing their story, and now he just changed his story. Okay. Here’s the end of his post:

When we look at the world through the lens of God’s Word, what we see makes sense.

We can’t argue with that. Can you, dear reader?

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

20 responses to “Ken Ham Says Evolution Makes No Sense

  1. Yes. When I look at the world through Ol’Hambo’s lens the only thing that makes sense is his healthy bank account.

  2. Michael Fugate

    Ken, most people wouldn’t be so proud about being so dumb –
    or as one long-time high school acquaintance signed my senior yearbook “Mike, you are a dumy!”

  3. Charles Deetz ;)

    Why does ‘survival of the fittest’ always seem to be interpreted as ‘kill or be killed’? Hambo sounds like a third grader hearing about evolution for the first time.

  4. Sigh – more lies from Hamster. He knows full well that evolution is not “survival of the fittest”.

  5. Dave Luckett

    The problem is that while it is not “survival of the fittest”, it is “survival of the fit enough” where “fit” is defined as “successful in gaining access to the resources of the relevant environment”, and the environment includes all factors operating on the supply of those resources, including the actions of other members of one’s own species.

    It’s the usual creationist thing: find some off-hand pocket description of reality. Such descriptions will always contain abridgements or inaccuracies, however pithy they might be for ordinary purposes. Exploit those. When a fuller and more accurate description is offered, complain that the story has been changed, that the scientist is “moving the goalposts”, and express scorn.

    Like many of the standard creationist gambits, this has a certain rhetorical, oratorical power. Omphalos can sound reasonable, if it’s not recognised. Searching for the unknown works if it’s conducted smoothly enough and permitted as a device. Exploitation of popular inaccuracies can work, too. Here we see it in the hands of a master shill and con artist.

    Lenin’s question arises, of course: “What is to be done?” I would submit that aside from resolute correction of his lies, little need be done about Ham and his phonus-balonus non-Biblical theme park. It’s palpably failing as I write. Pretty soon it’ll be a pile of lumber behind a rusty chain-link fence, and Ham will be back to selling vaporware on the net, like every other carny barker. P T Barnum said it for all the Ken Hams of this world. Their guarantee, their assurance of success, their employment policy: real estate isn’t being made any more and most other enterprises entail adding actual value, but, my friend, there’s a sucker born every minute.

  6. The scariest line in the article is:

    This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

    The whole team at AiG believes this.

  7. “successful in gaining access to the resources of the relevant environment”
    Even this is not enough. No matter how successful you are in this respect, if you don’t manage to produce offspring you’re toast in evolutionary terms.

  8. Dave Luckett

    Correction noted. Perhaps “successful in gaining access to the resources of the relevant environment, so as to produce viable offspring”.

  9. Reading this has convinced me that Hambone is a class-A conman! He knows his sheeple so well that the twisting of evilution is too well tailored to that group that you feel he understands evilution well, and can twist it just as well.

  10. Pete Moulton

    L.Long: it doesn’t hurt Hambo that he picked the single most gullible population on earth, namely American fundangelicals, as his marks.

  11. ” It’s a constantly changing story because it’s just that — a story.”

    He must be thinking of the Gospel message, because it keeps changing from Mark, to Mathew, to Luke, to John. Just an evolving story!

  12. Hambo and his ilk ignorantly or purposely misstate evolutionary principles. That said, what I still can’t understand is that if humans were perfectly created, how could such perfect beings sin and throw the entire universe into such chaos? Surely an omnipotent god could have created beings who wouldn’t sin.

  13. Pete Moulton

    Scientist: “Surely an omnipotent god could have created beings who wouldn’t sin.”

    Well, sure, but what’s the fun in that?

  14. Ah, PeteM, you should learn to read Dutch – I have a few Dutch creacrap websites for you that give the American fundagelicals a serious run for your money! The USA is not the only country with a Biblebelt.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Belt_(Netherlands)

  15. surprisesaplenty, they’re contractually obligated to believe it. Seriously. That’s a requirement of being an employee at AIG, that you agree that what they say is true.

  16. Dave Luckett

    Scientist, there would be no point in labouring over the official Christian theological explanation for the creation of human beings with the capacity to sin – it’s completely evidence-free and therefore of no particular interest. Suffice it to say that God created the angels, which cannot sin, and that this was in some way insufficient.

  17. Ross Cameron

    ‘why are there still so many bullies?’ Especially Xian bullies.

  18. But devils are often considered to be angels which have sinned. (Unlike humans who have sinned, devils get no divine salvation.)
    Humans can no longer sin once they have attained heaven.

  19. The story (or fairy tale) of how evolution occurred is always changing. It seems every news item carries a different story from the previous one! For example, evolution is supposed to be “survival of the fittest,” with the toughest and strongest surviving and the weak dying out — unless it’s not. Let me explain.

    Please don’t, Ken, until you actually know what you’re talking about.

    This is the kind of drivel we have to expect from creationists in general, and from Ark huckster Ham in particular. They have a cartoon view of prehistory (Genesis a la Hanna-Barbera), complete with humans riding dinosaurs, and a caricature notion of evolution deriving more from nineteenth-century right-wing social theorists than from Darwin, who was well aware of the evolutionary role of cooperation, alongside that of competition.

    As for the “story” of evolution “always changing,” that’s how it is when one has to piece together the truth from real but limited evidence rather than having it decreed. Would the Hamster prefer that, say, Galen’s anatomy was still considered valid? Would he want to be operated on by a surgeon who thought it was? I wouldn’t.

  20. As the understanding of the shape of the Earth has changed from a sphere to a spheroid to “pear shaped” and our present complicated mathematical representation,with no prospect of returning to the flat disk.