Ken Ham: Creationism Gives Us Great Science

This is about a familiar topic for Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. The title of his new post is Can Creationists Be Innovators?

Before the rise of what we know as science, when virtually everyone was a creationist, humans developed agriculture, the bow & arrow, horse-drawn wheeled vehicles, architecture, etc. The pace of such progress was painfully slow, but shouldn’t surprise us that every now and then, a creationist somehow devises something useful. When something like that happens, it’s important to note that the innovation isn’t derived from a knowledge of scripture.

Even today, according to the Salem hypothesis, engineering types — and that often includes computer scientists — have a tendency toward the creationist viewpoint. More accurately stated, many of the so-called “scientists” who admit being creationists are mostly engineers. There are several examples among the signers of the Discoveroids’ Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.

We’ve previously written about some of Hambo’s examples of creationists who managed to improve a device, or to invent something. See Ken Ham: Creationist Designs a Bicycle!. Before that, in Ken Ham Presents a Great Creation Scientist, Hambo was raving about Raymond Damadian, described by Wikipedia as: “an American medical practitioner and inventor of the first MR (Magnetic Resonance) Scanning Machine.” As we said then:

A “creation scientist” is one who attempts to pervert science so he can claim that it supports his faith-based beliefs in the recent six-day creation of the Earth, the universe, and all species, plus additional goodies like Noah’s Flood. Such ancient tales — even if Damadian believes them — have no scientific or technological relationship to the work for which he is known. … Had Damadian confined his work to the “science” of Genesis, he couldn’t have invented anything — except perhaps some kind of improved horse-drawn chariot.

With that as background, let’s see what Hambo has for us today. We’ll give you some excerpts from his new post, with bold font added by us for emphasis. He begins by criticizing Bill Nye, and says:

Creationists can certainly be innovators and engineers (as well as fantastic scientists in any field, even supposed evolutionary ones such as biology, geology, or paleontology — just like the many PhD scientists employed by Answers in Genesis). I’ve publicly challenged Nye many times to provide just one example of a technology that was developed because of a belief in millions of years or evolution. He’s never provided one because, well, there aren’t any. An evolutionary worldview does nothing to further technology — the question of origins has nothing to do with it!

Cleverly done. Just as we say that the “science” in Genesis leads nowhere, Hambo responds by saying that “a belief in millions of years or evolution” doesn’t get us anywhere. But Hambo deliberately misses the point. It’s not merely a belief in millions of years — which is a conclusion, not a presupposition — it’s a firm commitment to studying, testing, and understanding reality — not ancient mythology — that gives us scientific progress. Then he repeats an old clunker:

You see, there are two kinds of science. Observational science is directly testable, observable, and repeatable. It’s what was used to put a rover on Mars, develop WiFi, and, for Dr. Damadian, to make the MRI. But historical science deals with the past (e.g., rock layers and fossils), so it isn’t directly testable, observable, and repeatable. So what you believe about the past can directly influence how you interpret the evidence in the present. If you start with a belief in millions of years and evolution, that’s how you’ll interpret the evidence. But if you begin with God’s Word as your starting point, you’ll interpret the evidence through the lens of God’s Word and the history recorded in it.

We’ve debunked that “two kinds of science” too many times already, so we’ll just move on. Hambo says:

We Love Science — and We Want Kids to Love It Too! We want young people to be innovators and scientists because we at AiG love science. We want them to study God’s beautiful creation and universe for his glory and to develop technology to help us fight the effects of the Curse [caused by the sin of Adam & Eve].

The rest of Hambo’s post is nothing but promotion for his books and tapes about creationism for home-schoolers “to help encourage kids to love STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) and to think about it biblically.”

So there you are, dear reader. You too can raise your kids to be creation scientists. Who knows — one of them may invent some new and improved version of the loin cloth.

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

16 responses to “Ken Ham: Creationism Gives Us Great Science

  1. Michael Fugate

    If you start with a belief in millions of years and evolution, that’s how you’ll interpret the evidence. But if you begin with God’s Word as your starting point, you’ll ignore the evidence and just go on believing as if there were no evidence.

  2. But who is there who relies only on the Bible?
    Surely not the Young Earth Creationists.
    The Bible has scant to say about taxonomy, it has no interest in the hierarchy, nothing about the majority of forms of life … in brief, nothing positive, negative or neutral about evolution. Let alone any distinction between micro- and macro-evolution.
    The Bible has no philosophy of science. Nothing about a distinction between historical and observational science.
    The Bible does not claim literal infallibility.
    The Bible does make claims about the physical Earth which vanishingly few accept.

    And the ideas of millions of years and evolution arose among people who began with God’s Word – which they came to understand in two forms, the written (or, for some, tradition), and the created world.

  3. Michael Fugate

    Yes TomS, they aren’t even very good at observing the evidence in the Bible, let alone in Nature.

  4. If your mind is at least open to the idea of millions of years, you can make sense of the biological, geological, and astronomical data. If your mind is closed, none of it makes sense.

  5. “We Love Science — and We Want Kids to Love It Too!”
    That reminds me of my favourite anecdote about historical science (I may have posted this here before, but if so, it’s worth repeating). A child, not yet quite three years old, came into my house, saw a candlestick and said, “Before that red candle, you had a green one.” I have more than one candlestick and didn’t specifically remember, but the evidence was clear.

  6. You see, there are two kinds of science. Observational science is directly testable, observable, and repeatable. It’s what was used to put a rover on Mars, develop WiFi, and, for Dr. Damadian, to make the MRI. But historical science deals with the past (e.g., rock layers and fossils), so it isn’t directly testable, observable, and repeatable. So what you believe about the past can directly influence how you interpret the evidence in the present. If you start with a belief in millions of years and evolution, that’s how you’ll interpret the evidence. But if you begin with God’s Word as your starting point, you’ll interpret the evidence through the lens of God’s Word and the history recorded in it.

    What about what you believe about, say, nuclear physics?

    Creationists need to explain away the evidence from radioactive decay that the earth is billions of years old, so they posit that at the beginning of things radioisotopes decayed much faster than they do now. But they offer no evidence that this was so, nor do they explain why the planet didn’t melt from radioactivity-generated heat if it was so; they simply argue that it must have been so because they know from the Bible that the world is only a few thousand years old.

  7. Ham’s is nothing more and nothing else than an attack on inferential reasoning – and hence, an attack on reason itself. He is actually saying that the events of the past cannot be inferred from the evidence observed in the present. It is precisely that stupid.

    His only hope to get away with something so blatantly idiotic, is that he knows he is addressing people who are incapable of thinking for themselves at all. I fear his notable success so far bears him out.

  8. Creationism is anti-science. It has to be, as science disproves some of creationist’s core beliefs.

    That’s the reason they dishonestly try to separate science into two different types–a futile attempt to destroy the credibility of whole fields of science so they can continue to think some of their core beliefs are still valid.

    As an example, the gyrations they go through to support their beliefs in a young earth and a global flood during historic times include trying to destroy all modern forms of dating, geology, paleontology, history, genetics and who knows how many other related fields.

    So no, creationism doesn’t result in great science (except in their closed minds). Creationism is inherently anti-science.

  9. It would seem that Creationism has little relevance to Damadian’s field of research (which has no direct relevance to Evolutionary Biology, the Age of the Earth, etc). It is not that unusual for creationists-who-are-scientists to be reasonably successful in fields of expertise unrelated to Creationism. This is hardly surprising given humans’ ability to compartmentalise. I do not however see how this supports the validity of Creationism. The core argument seems to be a strawman, as I know of no prominent Anti-Creationist claiming that “Creationists can’t be innovators”.

  10. See the latest comics.com, Sunday October 15, Cul de sac

  11. “Before the rise of what we know as science, when virtually everyone was a creationist,”
    Rather a meaningless statement. One key feature of creationism is the rejection of Evolution Theory. Before there was Evolution Theory it couldn’t be rejected and hence it doesn’t make much sense to call “virtually everyone a creationist”. However that doesn’t affect your conclusion. Obviously before Evolution Theory was formulated people were capable of making scientific progress too, so it isn’t a necessary condition.

    Coyote presents a nice theory: “Creationism is inherently anti-science.”
    Theory demands evidence. EricL already mentioned it, so I’ll just provide two links.

    http://www.icr.org/creation-radiometric/
    https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/so-old-you-can-see-it/

    Note that this is “directly testable, observable, and repeatable.”
    Any believer who claims to love science can be expected to reject large chunks of it.

  12. @mnb0 Theory demands evidence.
    I am more of a hardliner.
    Theory demands theory.
    Whatever the solution to the demarcation problem for science, even if there is no solution – Whatever the creationists claim is evidence – We do not need to talk about whether creationism is science, because creationism does not have a theory of any sort because it does not make an attempt to explain things. It only claims, at best, that there is a fatal flaw in evolutionary biology.
    All we have to do is to point out that one of the main features of evolutionary biology stands unchallenged.
    The nested hierarchy of biological taxonomy is explained by common descent with variation.
    There is no alternative explanation. No creationist, IDer, for that matter, no scientist or philosopher has offered an explanation for the “tree of life” without mentioning common descent with variation. There have been disputes about how the variation takes place, and other details of the standard science. But the basic theory does not have a contender. Creationism has little substance, and ID has no substance in general. What little substance that Creationism has does not address the nested hierarchy.
    ID, for example, has a “definition” which mentions evolution – in a negative way – something like “ID is claim that there is a better explanation than evolution” – without giving a clue what that better (or even alternative, competing, or maybe even not so good) explanation is.
    We don’t have to talk about evidence, when there is nothing – evidence for what?

  13. I wasn’t talking about evidence for Evolution Theory vs. creacrap.
    I gave evidence for Coyote’s “Creationism is inherently anti-science.”

  14. Perhaps some of you are familiar with YouTuber WildwoodClaire1, a retired geologist that used to make anti-creationist videos. (I think she gave it up due to abject frustration)
    She made a point that oil companies that hire geologists aren’t looking for geologists from unaccredited schools that believe that all the strata is less than 6000 years old and a result of a global flood (that of course never happened) When it comes to making money in a situation where drilling in the wrong spot too often causes bankruptcy they are looking for scientists with a firm grip on reality.
    Even successful creation scientists like the MRI designer unwittingly use the evolutionary framework. As for PhD scientists with a legit doctorate like Jason Lisle, they only way they make money is from the rather limited venue of impressing the rubes.

  15. ““No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.” HL Mencken