Ken Ham: Why Humans Are Evil

This is a good one from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. He just posted this at Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: Did We “Inherit Our Dark Evil Side” from Chimps? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and Hambo’s scripture references omitted:

An article appeared recently in the Mirror, a UK news site, featuring an interview with Jane Goodall, the famous evolutionary primatologist who studied chimpanzees in Tanzania. Dr. Goodall was discussing her early days working with wild chimps. She shares that she originally thought chimps were nice, only to later learn they can “rip your face off.”

You know who Jane Goodall is. This is the article Hambo is talking about: Jane Goodall: I thought chimps were like us only nicer, but we inherited our dark evil side from them. Hambo says:

Apparently, the chimpanzees were so dangerous that once Dr. Goodall had a baby, the baby had to live in a cage so the chimps wouldn’t steal him and kill him. Eventually she watched a war erupt between two groups that lasted for years, only to end when one group was totally annihilated. She says,

[Hambo quotes from the Mirror, and adds his own bold font]: It was a very dark time for me. . . . I thought they were like us, only nicer. I’d no idea of the brutality they could show. War always seemed to me to be a purely human behaviour. I’ve come to accept that the dark, evil side of human nature is deeply embedded in our genes, inherited from our primate ancestors. [emphasis added]

You know Hambo doesn’t like that. He tells us:

Because she began with the wrong starting point — naturalistic evolutionary ideas — she reached the wrong conclusion. We don’t have a “dark, evil side” because we inherited it from some ape-like ancestors; we are sinful because we are descendants of Adam. You see, Adam, the first man, rebelled against God and brought sin and death into creation [etc.]

Ah yes, that’s our problem. Hambo continues:

And Adam’s sin is the reason chimps can be brutal and engage in “war.” Adam’s rebellion broke creation and now everything groans, including animals such as chimps. Our world isn’t the way God made it! Creation, in the beginning, was “very good”, but, because of sin, it isn’t any more.

Skipping some stuff about chimpanzee tool usage, our last excerpt from ol’ Hambo’s post is this:

According to evolutionary ideas, we’re just animals, and chimpanzees are our evolutionary cousins. But God’s Word gives us a very different perspective on who we are. Genesis tells us organisms were created according to their kinds (mostly the family level of classification) — that means the different kinds are not related to each other, and we’re not related to them either.

So there you are. Jane Goodall has no credibility because she’s a Darwinist, and once again, ol’ Hambo has reaffirmed that he ain’t no kin to no monkey.

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

21 responses to “Ken Ham: Why Humans Are Evil

  1. “You see, Adam, the first man …”
    Who is the “Adam” and where can we get a listing of his DNA sequences so that we can determine: 1. Is it human? 2. If it is human, exactly who are its descendants?

    Ironically, Ham has DNA that is far closer to matching a chimp than his fantasy “first man”.

  2. Holding The Line In Florida

    To quote Bluto Blutarski. “Bulls..t!” The Hamster is even more ludicrous than usual.

  3. Michael Fugate

    But humans are part of the ape “kind”…

  4. Ross Cameron

    Since Adam`s sons had to either bonk their mother or sisters, we know where the sin blame game lies.

  5. Indeed, Michael Fugate has nailed it. If kinds are at the family level, as Ham says, then we and chimps are of the same kind, hominidae. So Ham is actully saying that we *did* evolve from a common ancestor with chimps, but that’s only microevolution and doesn’t count

  6. Mark Germano

    “Genesis tells us organisms were created according to their kinds (mostly the family level of classification).”

    Ken left himself some wiggle room to separate humans from apes with that “mostly.”

  7. The Bible does not use the word “kind” in reference to humans.
    The Bible does not give much guidance on the scope of “kind”.

  8. PaulB thinks he can point out a creacrap error:

    “If kinds are at the family level, as Ham says”
    Ol’Hambo being the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else undoubtedly will answer that the entire human population forms one big family – exactly one. Kind means what Ol’Hambo wants it to mean so only Homo Sapiens belongs to Homo Sapiens kind. We athiest communist fascist darwinist evilutionist don’t have no credibility, just like Ol’Hambo ain’t no kin of no monkey.

  9. TomS, mbno, I am using Ham’s notion of “kind”; ” Genesis tells us organisms were created according to their kinds (mostly the family level of classification)”, and at the family level all apes are a kind.

    As for the Bible, it does not define “kind”, although IIRC in Leviticus the word is used for species or genus of birds that must not be eaten.

    Ofc, Genesis has humans being created separately from (other) apes. It seems that with his definition of “kind”, as with so many other things, Ham is recklessly re-writing the Bible

  10. BTW the word “ape” in the English of the KJV referred to the only non-human primates known to Europeans of that time: the old-monkeys. Chimps, gorillas, gibbons, orangs, were unknown, as well as lemurs, etc. and new-world monkeys.
    Species in the modern biological sense only are a fairly late concept. Not to mention genus, family, order, etc.

  11. PaulB is stubborn: “at the family level all apes are a kind”
    Yup. And Homo Sapiens is no ape. It’s a family apart. Ol’Hambo knows. You don’t. So it doesn’t make sense to contradict the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.

  12. mbno, I repent. Linnaeus told us that apes and humans are in the same family, but Ham says different, and Ham is holier and more up to date than Linnaeus. That settles it.

  13. Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself. Basically, it’s made up of two separate words — “mank” and “ind.” What do these words mean? It’s a mystery, and that’s why so is mankind.

    —Jack Handey, Deeper Thoughts

    …And I add, for your contemplation, the observation that we don’t talk about Chimpkind, nor Orangutankind &c. &c.

  14. …once again, ol’ Hambo has reaffirmed that he ain’t no kin to no monkey.

    …and the chimps are rejoicing. You see, that’s why they always look like they are smiling.

  15. Michael Fugate

    If Ken ain’t no kin to no monkey, then he must be not be human. Has checked to see if maybe he is a golem?

  16. “inherited it from some ape-like ancestors”

    WAIT. At least he now understands that we don’t claim to have come from chimps!

  17. Ken has chimps on the brain, poor fellow. What Goodall said was that we inherited from “primate ancestors”, not Ham’s “ape-like ancestors”.

    Goodall was right, and so might Ham have been too, if only he could get over his fixation with apes.

    In fact, if Ham considers primates as a ‘kind’, then Noah and his family must surely have begotten all of the post-flood primates. Not a pleasant thought, but it would be a basis to suggest that Ham IS kin to a monkey.

  18. I wonder what Ham’s take is on the Cleveland Cavaliers player Jordan Clarkson’s theory:
    “Y’all know how we got dogs and stuff, right? So I think there was bigger people on the world before us, and, like, the dinosaurs was their pets.”

    I hope he self publishes

  19. tedinoz asserts,
    “…if Ham considers primates as a ‘kind’, then Noah and his family must surely have begotten all of the post-flood primates.”

    No, no, no. We have it on good authority [footnote 1] that Mama and Papa Gorilla were aboard the Ark — Deck C, Starboard Passageway B, Cage 37.

    [1] Ham, Kenneth – Musings of a Deranged Homesick Aussie, pg. 129

  20. Lets see if I understand Kenny. Once there was a very intelligent designer who designed a perfectly wonderful world, and then some single guy, the alleged Adam, messed the entire thing up. Sounds like a pretty dumb designer. I bet a freshman engineer at Lehigh could do a better job.

  21. It suffers from worse continuity than many an opera. But we forgive operas because of some wonderful music.
    Does anyone carefully read Genesis?
    The is no attention to continuity in the story of Joseph and his brothers, or the Flood, or the two creation stories.
    But Genesis 1 by itself doesn’t make any sense.

    And it surely isn’t helped by the imago of the creationist additions.