Ken Ham: Adam & Eve Must Be Real

This is one of the most important posts ever by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. So pay attention, dear reader.

At the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), Hambo’s creationist ministry, we find Adam and Eve: Real People or Representative Hominins? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

It’s becoming increasingly common to meet Christians, especially leaders in Bible colleges and seminaries, who reject the historicity of Adam and Eve. [That’s outrageous!] One popular view, espoused by well-known scientist Dr. Francis Collins and others, is that Adam and Eve were just representatives of a collective of 10,000 hominins (that is, if they even existed at all). Yet this kind of thinking is far from the biblical view of the first humans.

Why is that important? Hambo explains:

Scripture hinges our current sin-bound state on the sin of the first man, Adam: [bible quote.] It also hinges our hope of the gospel on the literal fall of Adam and the consequence of death. It’s this that Jesus came to free us from. If there was no Adam and no original sin, why did Jesus need to come and die? Without a literal Genesis, the gospel falls apart.

Wow — the reality of Adam & Eve is essential! Without them, Hambo’s entire enterprise collapses. He tells us:

Why do so many Christians reject a literal Adam? Because, instead of trusting God’s infallible Word and allowing it to be the authority, they’ve allowed sinful man’s fallible interpretation of the evidence to be the authority.

Egad, that’s horrible! Is there any hope? Hambo continues:

But, rather than confirming evolutionary ideas about the past, new research in genetics actually confirms what we’d expect by starting with the Bible’s account of history.

That’s wonderful! How can we learn about this new research? Let’s read on:

This research on mitochondrial and nuclear DNA, and what it means for the question of the historicity of Adam, is discussed by various creation scientists and theologians in a brand-new DVD from Evidence Press, DNA Battles: Were Adam & Eve Historical?

Hambo graciously provides a link to where one can buy that DVD. Here it is: DNA Battles. There we learn that the DVD features not only Hambo himself, but also Dr. Georgia Purdom, Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson, and Dr. Terry Mortenson. Wowie — they’re all creation scientists employed by Hambo! It must be a great DVD, and it costs only $14.99.

Now we come to the end of Hambo’s post:

Theistic evolutiUn [sic] and the attack on a literal Adam and Eve are spreading through churches — maybe even your own! [Gasp!] Get equipped to encourage others to trust God’s Word with the answers you’ll find in DNA Battles.

Okay, dear reader, you know what you have to do. Buy Hambo’s video and learn The Truth!

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

17 responses to “Ken Ham: Adam & Eve Must Be Real

  1. It is a good thing that there are so many preachers willing and eager to tell us all about their various gods’ words, despite the fact that they disagree all of the time. Without these idiot evangelists no one would be able to discriminate between psychotic religious ramblings and the various gods’ words.

  2. I was about nine or ten when I rejected the historicity of Adam & Eve, not because of genetic evidence (which wasn’t available back then) but because the whole story had the distinct flavour of parable.

    Fast forward 40+ years and still some Christians- even pretty moderate ones like Francis Collins- are bending over backwards to make it fit in homo sapiens’s reality.

  3. Eddie Janssen

    Two – three – questions about Adam and Eve (the first I have mentioned before on this blog)
    1. Eve was the first to sin, not Adam. Give her the credit for that.
    2. What on earth was the idea behind not creating Eve at the same time as Adam?
    3. And as a bonus question: What would have happened to mankind if neither Eve, nor Adam, nor anyone of their descendants would have eaten apples?

  4. So apples are responsible for keeping me out of heaven so I don’t have to ever see Hambo? I think I’ll have another mackintosh or a wine sap right now!

  5. Charles Deetz ;)

    Like Draken, much of my acceptance of faith growing up adjusted based on inference and reality. I don’t think I ever connected Jesus’ redemptive power with ‘original sin’ but ‘current sin’, the sin of me and the world today. Even now, my adjustment is that Jesus’ story gives us a way to understand forgiveness, regardless of whether you believe in him or not. Hambo is all about the truth of the story itself, less about the value of the story for mankind.

  6. “If there was no Adam and no original sin, why did Jesus need to come and die?”
    No one less than Jerry Coyne wrote exactly the same! What more do pseudo-christians like Francis Collins to be convinced?´
    Btw, folks, Genesis doesn´t speak about apples. That would have been most remarkable, because about 2500 years ago apples were not known yet in the Middle East.

  7. Indeed, what if Eve hadn’t sinned is one of the funnier conversations to have with believers. If no original sin, what was gods plan? How did he plan to stack the billions and billions of people to come in the garden? Answer: its a stupid story.

  8. Michael Fugate

    In the second story, Eve was a clone of Adam. Which shows how little biology God actually understood when dictating the story to Moses…

  9. Karl Goldsmith (@KarlGoldsmith)

    Yet again bastardization of judaism.

  10. Karl Goldsmith (@KarlGoldsmith)

    Oh so it’s yet another AiG article shilling a DVD.

  11. @Frank B
    I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on “Felix culpa”.

  12. The only reason, if that, to buy the DVD is to see how these IDiots pretzel decades of solid science to comport with just two founding humans. But thanks to SC we already know their thinking, so no sale. And as I’ve said before, it’s hard to fathom how two naked people having a fruit snack could have such terrible consequences — converting vegetarian animals to carnivores, thorny plants, and ultimately a great flood. And there’s no accounting for their son’s wives.

  13. Ken Ham’s argument in a nutshell:

    1. My pet theological doctrine cannot be possibly wrong.
    2. Therefore, science is wrong.

  14. Ken Ham and Ann Gauger: together, at last!

    I have a fantasy of the two of them, looking adoringly into each other’s eyes, whispering sweet Biblical nothings, and confessing their secret “sins”:

    Ken: Tell me, Ann, you seem a little pensive. What’s weighing on your conscience?
    Ann: That green screen I stood in front of, for a start, trying really, really hard to pretend I was in an actual scientific lab, doing real scientific research. How ’bout you?
    Ken: Well…just between you and I…I did fudge things just a little on the last Ark attendance figures….
    Ann: Ken! I’m shocked!
    Ken: I know! But Jesus should be back any day, now, Ann. Any day! So, you see, I’m sure He’ll understand.

    Things are already getting a bit weird and kinky, so I’ll leave it there, for now.

  15. You pervert.

  16. @FrankB
    BTW re apples in the Bible.
    Just another example of the language of the Bible being constrained by the culture of the Ancient Near East.
    It reminds me of the Omphalos Hypothesis … things being made with careful attention to details so as they appear to bear signs of their origin, which are in fact misleading.
    In the case of the Bible, this goes so far as to have occasional citation of

  17. @FrankB
    BTW re apples in the Bible.
    Just another example of the language of the Bible being constrained by the culture of the Ancient Near East.
    It reminds me of the Omphalos Hypothesis … things being made with careful attention to details so as they appear to bear signs of their origin, which are in fact misleading.
    In the case of the Bible, this goes so far as to have occasional citation of