Ken Ham Says Evolutionists Are Cannibals

It doesn’t take much to excite Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. Look what he just posted at Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: Richard Dawkins: “Could We Overcome Our Taboo Against Cannibalism?”

You know who Richard Dawkins is. Hambo has ranted about him before — see, for example, Ken Ham Criticizes Richard Dawkins. Here are some excerpts from Hambo’s new post, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Atheist Richard Dawkins is well-known for stirring the pot over at Twitter with his inflammatory tweets. He usually gets a largely negative reaction, with people alarmed or disgusted by what he says. But what they fail to realize is that Dawkins is usually being consistent with his atheistic worldview. And that’s the case yet again with his latest tweet, “Could we overcome our taboo against cannibalism?”

We don’t have access to Twitter, but according to Hambo, Dawkins tweeted this:

Tissue culture “clean meat” already in 2018? I’ve long been looking forward to this. [better link later]
What if human meat is grown? Could we overcome our taboo against cannibalism? An interesting test case for consequentialist morality versus “yuck reaction” absolutism.

What’s that all about? It looks like a jocular reaction to something reported three months ago by PhysOrg: Lab-grown meat could let humanity ignore a serious moral failing, which says:

Lab-grown meat is being hailed as the solution to the factory farming of animals. The downside of factory farming for the cows, chickens and pigs themselves is obvious enough. But it is also bad for human health, given the amount of antibiotics pumped into the animals, as well as for the environment, given the resources required to provide us with industrial quantities of meat. By contrast, lab-grown meat need have none of these costs. Once the technology is perfected it will be indistinguishable in taste and texture from real meat, and will be cheaper to produce and purchase.

There is, however, a major problem with lab-grown meat: a moral problem. Factory farming causes billions of animals to live and die in great pain each year. Our response has been almost total indifference and inaction and, despite the rise of vegetarianism and veganism in some quarters, more animals are killed today for food than ever before. This does not reflect well on us, morally speaking, and history will not remember us kindly. The moral problem stems from the fact that we will likely switch over to lab-grown meat because it is cheap, or thanks to its benefits for human health or the environment. That is, we will do it for our own sake and not for the sake of animals.

They go on and on about that “moral problem,” but doesn’t impress us much, and it’s not what Hambo is ranting about. He says:

Dawkins was responding to a news article [It’s the link in his tweet: Lab-grown ‘clean’ meat could be on sale by end of 2018, says producer] about meat grown in a laboratory, referred to as “clean meat.” This meat is grown from stem cells harvested via biopsy from living livestock. But Dawkins took this idea in a whole new direction when he suggested we could grow and consume human meat. In their comments, many people dismissed Dawkins’ statements as disgusting, though a surprising number agreed with him (some people even suggested eating young-earth creationists over their cat). Others tried to explain away his thoughts by appealing to health or cultural reasons.

Okay, so Dawkins made a joke about lab-grown human meat — which wasn’t mentioned in that article. So what? Hambo tells us:

But Dawkins is being utterly consistent with his beliefs. He believes we’re all products of millions of years of evolution. He believes we’re just animals, really no different from cows, sheep, or pigs. So if we eat those creatures, why not eat human “meat” too? Especially if you don’t actually have to kill a human in order to harvest the “meat.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! According to Hambo, Dawkins is serious because all evolutionists are cannibals, doncha know? He continues:

But, really, in his worldview, why should we care if we kill human “animals”? From an atheistic worldview, ultimately there’s no purpose or meaning in life.

Hambo, on the other hand, is a creationist, which means his beliefs are The Truth. The bible tells him that cannibalism is wrong. Without that guidance, like Dawkins, he wouldn’t have a clue. He continues:

Now such an idea is repugnant to most people — and for good reason! We intuitively know humans are different from animals. And that’s because we are. We were made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). We’re not animals — we’re unique and hold a special value simply because we’re made in the image of God. No animals were made in God’s image; therefore we aren’t “meat,” and our muscle was not created to be eaten.

Actually, we are meat. There are plenty of predator species out there that traditionally hunted and devoured humans — and still do when they get the chance. Where does Hambo think they came from? Anyway, he righteously concludes:

Secularists really don’t have a good moral argument against Dawkins’ disgusting statements. But when we start with God’s Word, we are able to authoritatively declare that his idea is morally wrong.

Well, dear reader, you have a problem. When the evolutionists start marketing lab-grown human beef, whatcha gonna do?

Copyright © 2018. 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

19 responses to “Ken Ham Says Evolutionists Are Cannibals

  1. Hambone reaches a new low in moral depravity in order to rationalize his pre science world view.

  2. Where does the Bible tell us that cannibalism is wrong?
    I haven’t bothered to look. I suspect that the answer doesn’t make any difference to Bibliolaters.

  3. siluriantrilobite

    Hmm. If starving I would probably cook and eat a plump creationist before I would even consider eating my smart and lovely beagle/Bassett Hound mix (Bagle Hound). Ken Ham would be safe in any post-apocalyptic road warrior Donner Party cannibal scenario. However, Ken looks diseased and bit gamey. Probably has nasty tasting stringy meat that would be chewy even if slow cooked. Not all Ham is edible.

  4. Tom – if Hambo takes the scriptures literally, it would appear as though cannibalism is a directive of Jesus in that he instructed his followers to eat his flesh and drink his blood so that the would have everlasting life.

  5. Ummm… At least one common Christian practice IS cannibalism if what they believed were true was actually true.

  6. As the guy in Crocodile Dundee 2 said:

    “Are you, uh, enjoying that?”
    “Nah, needs garlic!”

  7. The Christian rite of communion is symbolic cannibalism of the “body and blood of Christ.” It used to be taught that it was in fact genuine cannibalism (though it wasn’t put that way) because the bread and wine were miraculously transmuted into actual divine flesh and blood at some point (presumably after being swallowed).

    This goes at least some way toward explaining the persecution of Christians by the Roman Empire, which for some strange reason (IRONY ALERT) took a dim view of religions whose rituals involved eating people. It may not have been clear to the Romans that the Christians’ “cannibalism” was purely symbolic.

  8. Ross Cameron

    Munching on former people was covered in the 1973 movie Soylent Green with Charlton Heston. Can`t remember any outcry, religious or otherwise, to the concept.

  9. Eric Lipps:
    The Christian rite of communion is symbolic cannibalism of the “body and blood of Christ.” It used to be taught that it was in fact genuine cannibalism (though it wasn’t put that way)…

    According to a close acquaintance who is Roman Catholic, it still is taught. One of the reasons we have agreed not to discuss religion.

    On other matters (OT), Stephen Hawking has died at age 76. The Enlightenment has suffered a terrible loss.

  10. “We intuitively know humans are different from animals.”
    In the first place I don’t need my intuition to know that. Biology suffices. In the second place biology tells us that for instance red pandas are different from all other animals as well.

  11. Communion can’t be true cannibalism and that is eating ones own species, if buyBull is true then jesus was an alien hybrid eating his body in some miracle transformation is just eating, although it don’t satisfy much!

    Hambone is an IDIOT! Lab grown meat is not cannibalism as the meat is only human by DNA, not birth, and the meat has not been polluted with toxins by living 35yrs. Because if he thinks (not) that cells=human, then he is guilty of suicide everytime he scratches his head in puzzlement!

  12. Ceteris Paribus

    Meh. In some ancient Monty Python skit there was a reference to cannibalism, but the participants panned it. Turns out that human meat “Didn’t taste very good. — And the portions were so small.”

  13. I searched a couple of sites which give proof texts from the Bible, and it seems to be that there is no order against human cannibalism. There are a number of places in the Bible where cannibalism is described in negative terms, but not forbidden, as eating some things.

  14. What about blood transfusion or organ transplants?

  15. Derek Freyberg

    Jehovah’s Witnesses, and possibly other Christian sects, object to blood transfusions (as they believe the Bible prohibits the consumption of blood), but they apparently will accept organ transplants as long as no blood is involved.

  16. I wonder what wine goes well with human.

  17. There is a Biblical order agaist consuming blood.
    I understand that JWs are Old Earth Creationists, and are strict about idolatry (I wonder what they think about images of Noah’s Ark).

  18. A little late with this, but what does the Hamster think about Placenta Stew?

  19. See “Placentophagy” in Wikipedia.