Ken Ham Criticizes Donald Trump

Does out title shock you, dear reader? Well, judge for yourself, and get ready for a dazzling display of creationist irony and wit by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.

Hambo just posted this at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: Is Anyone An “Animal”? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

During a roundtable discussion in the White House, US President Donald Trump referred to members of the violent gang MS–13 as “animals.” [Gasp!] His comments (as they often do) sparked a good deal of discussion among the media. Some commentators, such as this gentleman writing for the The Washington Post [link omitted], claimed “No one is an ‘animal,’” and that Trump shouldn’t have used that phrase, even to make the point that the gang has no moral compass or conscience. But is this a position consistent with the secular media’s worldview?

Ooooooooooooh! Hambo has spotted a contradiction in the media’s secular worldview! He says:

In an evolutionary worldview (taught as fact to generations of kids in America’s public education system), all humans are animals, just highly evolved ones. So within this worldview, it’s entirely consistent to refer to anyone as an animal — and mean it in a literal sense! For secularists to claim “no one is an animal” is actually highly inconsistent. They want to believe evolutionary ideas (e.g., man is just an animal) while still believing humans are somehow unique (which borrows from a biblical worldview). But they can’t have it both ways!

Ooooooooooooh! Hambo is so clever! He tells us:

Perhaps they’re just objecting to President Trump’s colloquial use of the term, referring to the violent MS–13 gang as a group of people having no moral compass or conscience. But if we’re just animals, then there is no such thing as morality. So to MS–13 members, morality is completely arbitrary in such a worldview. Animals don’t abide by any form of morality, and if we’re nothing more than animals, why shouldn’t we decide whatever morality we want for ourselves? If MS–13 gangs believe violent crimes and murders are right, who are we to say they are wrong within a secular worldview?

Jeepers, he’s right! No one who accepts the theory of evolution can criticize anyone for anything! Hambo continues:

Without an absolute standard for morality, anything goes. But we have an absolute standard for morality — God’s Word. Our Creator and Judge has told us what is right and what is wrong and has given us a conscience [scripture reference]. It’s God’s Word that tells us we’re not animals and that we’re created in the very image of God [scripture reference] and not related to animals in any way.

Yeah — Hambo ain’t no kin to no monkey! And now we come to the end:

In a biblical worldview, yes, no one is an animal, but we are all sinners in rebellion against God and desperately in need of a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. So MS-13 gang members are certainly acting in sinful rebellion against their Creator!

So there you are, dear reader. Hambo has not only criticized the media, which is easy to do, but he has also criticized Trump, who never should have referred to MS–13 as animals — unless he’s one of those hell-bound Darwinists.

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 Criticizes Donald Trump

  1. Dear Ken Ham,

    Biologically speaking then, what are you if not an animal? Plant? Protist? Fungus?

    Anxiously awaiting your answer, I remain

    Retired Science Guy

  2. Dave Luckett

    The usual. Like “theory”, like “evidence”, Ham is using a word in one sense in one place and in another sense elsewhere. We are animals, members of the animal kingdom. That is, we are eukaryotes that move, consume organics, reproduce sexually and grow from a blastula. Trump was using the word in the colloquial sense – I doubt very much if he has a clue what the scientific sense is. In that sense, applied to human beings, it means debased and depraved.

    I don’t agree with much of what Trump says, but as applied to MS-13, I call him justified. Ham, and those of the liberal stripe who protest that human beings can’t be animals, oddly join hands over this, and are wrong, but for different reasons. MS-13 are biologically animals because they are human beings. They are also colloquially animals because they are violent, depraved criminals. Trump’s description of them is correct, either way.

  3. Dave Luckett

    Oh, and Ham is strumming the one-string authoritarian harp, of course. How can we know if violence and murder is right or wrong, without an authority to tell us?

    It astonishes me that there are people stupid enough to be impressed with that question, when the answer is so painfully obvious. We know we do not wish violence to be done to us. We do not wish to be murdered. The smallest, slightest extension of empathy, available to any but a raging psychopath, would inform us that the same applies to others, and the merest touch of reality implies that what I may do to others, others may do to me. It is therefore directly in my own interest AS WELL as that of others, that I avoid violence where possible, and that I benefit others – so that they are better disposed to benefiting me.

    No word of any deity, no holy book, no divine dictum, is needed for that simple observation. Anybody who thinks that such an idea needs to be handed down from On High is, by definition, an authoritarian, and lacking in empathy. I would say, they are estranged from reality. And that’s our Ken.

  4. Just as well Hambo’s Bible-derived morality no longer prevails; we might all still be practicing slavery and ethnic cleansing, upon Yahweh’s commands. So much for absolutes.

    God’s Word- or at least Ken’s- gets trumped by the dastardly e-word, and better concepts of morality, yet again.

  5. Hambo proclaims ex cathedra:

    Animals don’t abide by any form of morality

    Certainly, that is arguable–and likely false.

    Other animals do not codify morality, but their behaviour–whether derived from inherited instinct or purposeful ratiocination–is not utter random and destructive. Any species that consistently behaved in such destructive behaviour would soon go extinct.

    And on the other hand, it should be noted that a defining characteristic of gangs such as MS-13, the Mafia, the ‘Ndrangheta &c is in fact adherence to a strict and well-defined code of ‘morality’ that embraces such values as loyalty, mutual assistance, omertà, and so forth. The only real difference between conventional and ‘criminal’ codes of morality is the degree of violence–and the system of authorising such violence–to enforce it.

  6. If you are a darwinist you may also be a determinist in which case nothing is ever our fault since we do not have free will. In my view it is entirely correct to classify all humans as animals but the more interesting point is whether we can and eventually will alter our behaviour and abandon darwinism in favour of our own scientific alterations. Personally I am with Kurtzweil and the philosopher David Pearce on this subject. Sadly it is unlikely to come in my lifetime.

  7. Ol’Hambo is curious: “who are we to say they are wrong within a secular worldview?”
    I’m not sure about him, but I am Frank Buisman.and I say those gang members are wrong. Oh. of course, the good old non-sequitur “I think ethics is subjective hence I should shut up.” The reply is well known: Ol’Hambo’s morals are just as subjective – they totally completely 100% on the subject he calls God.

    “But we have an absolute standard for morality — God’s Word.”
    Ol’Hambo refuses to understand the difference between “objective” and “absolute”. Some other characters who have absolute standards for morality: nazis and Soviet-commies. Oh, and that guy from Pyong Yang, who is or is not going to meet Donald the Clown.

  8. @Zeno: ” alter our behaviour and abandon darwinism”
    Define “darwinism”. If you mean Evolution Theory (which is lots and lots more than Darwin formulated in Origin of Species) I can assure you that I have altered my behaviour pretty often without abandoning Evolution Theory.
    To summarize: you don’t make sense and that doesn’t exactly encourage me to read Kurtzweil and Pearce.

  9. Eric Lipps

    Trump is now saying that when he called illegal Mexican immigrants “animals” he meant only thugs like MS-13. His original remark, however, referred to undocumented immigrants as “murderers, rapists, drug smugglers and a few good ones.” Since it’s hard to see who the “good” murders, rapists and drug dealers might be, it’s clear he meant to demonize all of the border crossers, deliberately lumping innocent people with violent criminals.

  10. Correct! Trumpkin is an idiot to call MS-13 animals!!! Show me any group of animals that kill each other for no good reason??? He is insulting animals! MS-13 was acting like humans, they are a pack of humans!!!

  11. Chickens show empathy. Trump doesn’t. So, chickens are more advanced than Trump.

    Apes can use tools. Ken Ham is a tool. Ken Ham gets used by apes.

  12. Megalonyx [bold added]:
    “…a defining characteristic of gangs such as MS-13, the Mafia, the ‘Ndrangheta &c is in fact adherence to a strict and well-defined code of ‘morality’ that embraces such values as loyalty, mutual assistance, omertà, and so forth. The only real difference between conventional and ‘criminal’ codes of morality is the degree of violence–and the system of authorising such violence–to enforce it.”

    Straying off-topic here —
    As a nation, we enforce the same code of morality — but instead of calling it “loyalty”, we use the word “patriotism”. And instead of calling it “violence”, we label it “military service”. “Murder victim” becomes “enemy combatant”,
    and “omertà” is “not divulging classified information”.

    In other words, nationalistic patriotism can be considered un-Christian. (“love thine enemy” and “turn the other cheek”, etc.) No, I’m not a Quaker, nor even a conscientious objector. I’m merely pointing out how we use language to further our tribal interests.

    Yes, if we are attacked as a nation, it is our right to defend ourselves. But is it our right to use force or threat of force to project our political interests? We are spending a huge amount of our national treasure on what we call “national defense” without asking if some of that money would be better spent on improving conditions both at home and abroad to lessen the influence of demagogic leaders.

  13. Michael Fugate

    “highly evolved”?, us? No more evolved than other organism alive today….
    Once again we find Ham unable to report anything accurately.

  14. As I remember, Ken Ham is himself an immigrant.

    We should have had tighter immigration laws decades ago.

  15. Karl Goldsmith (@KarlGoldsmith)

    He had three tweets over a week ago about the comment making out he didn’t understand, and it has taken him that long to combine those tweets into a blog post.

  16. Ham seems to have confused his biology (that humans are indeed mammals and great apes and his cultural and ethical terms (that someone who is a criminal could be described as an “animal”. The droolers will love it because it reinforces their world view, secularism bad, fundamentalism good.

  17. Michael Fugate

    540M in actual years is how many in creationist years?
    Was this pre-flood or post-flood?

  18. @Michael Fugate
    tells us about the oldest footprints. Pairs of legs. How about the first animal with a single leg?

  19. Actually Ham tried his very best to criticise not Trump but the US mainstream media that Trump spends all his time attacking.

  20. I’m tackling one of those tough metaphysical questions that arise in onese life: who is more moronic, Donald Trump or Hambo?

  21. Their sycophants.