A Strange One from Ken Ham

As we’ve mentioned before, Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else — posts a large number of articles which make clear his opposition to LGBT people — for biblical reasons, of course. See, e.g.: AIG: Bible College Does/Does Not Approve Gays.

Today at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), ol’ Hambo’s creationist ministry, he just posted Academics “Harassed” Over Transgender Research. But don’t leap to any conclusions. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

In theory, science is about free inquiry and challenging long-held assumptions in a search for the truth. In practice, it’s often driven by unproven assumptions, faulty frameworks, and political correctness. A recent letter in the Guardian (a UK publication), signed by over 100 academics in a vast range of scientific disciplines, expresses their concern over the “suppression of proper academic analysis and discussion of the social phenomenon of transgenderism.”

This is the letter he’s talking about: Academics are being harassed over their research into transgender issues. We don’t try to keep up with what’s going on in social science, but it appears that the letter is from a group that disagrees with mainstream social scientists. It says: “[W]e have submitted to the consultation a number of letters, outlining, as individuals, concerns about the introduction of self-ID for gender reassignment.” Hambo supports them and says:

The letter expresses the concerns these academics have about scientific freedom in research, particularly regarding the issue of gender. They claim members of their group have faced harassment and attempts to censor their research simply because others don’t agree with the results and conclusions of the research.

Hambo feels their pain and he tells us:

Of course, such discrimination and harassment is nothing new to creationists — highly qualified creation scientists have suffered from such things for decades. [Yes, and it’s an outrage!] For example, AiG’s Dr. Andrew Snelling, a highly qualified geologist, was denied permits to remove rocks from the Grand Canyon simply because of his creationist beliefs. Praise the Lord, the case was settled out of court in his favor (on the basis of 1st amendment rights) and he was able to do his research.

We remember that — see AIG’s Grand Canyon Lawsuit Is Settled. Hambo continues:

Many people view science as a neutral discipline but it is not. [Gasp!] Everyone comes to their research with a set of assumptions they use to interpret what they find. And the logical conclusions of the research are often rejected, ignored, or, in many cases, never even considered if they don’t align with the mantra of the day (e.g. an old earth/universe, biological evolution/man caused climate change, etc.).

It’s so unfair! Let’s read on:

In the social sciences, research critical of popular ideas regarding gender is, according to these academics, at risk of suppression, censorship, or the loss of critical grant money.

Just like creationists! Another excerpt:

This should be a reminder that the research published in scientific journals isn’t the final answer on anything. It’s subject to change — and there may be competing ideas or interpretations that never saw the light of day because they didn’t agree with the status quo!

Does Hambo imagine an alliance between creation science and this minority in social science? Who knows? Here’s how he ends his post:

Our only source for absolute, unchanging truth is God’s Word. And God’s Word plainly teaches we were created male and female, in the image of God (Genesis 1:27).

We can’t figure out where Hambo thinks he’s going with this. Can you, dear reader?

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

14 responses to “A Strange One from Ken Ham

  1. Steve Gerrard

    First he says “This should be a reminder that the research published in scientific journals isn’t the final answer on anything.”

    Having thus propped up his foot at a nice angle, he then shoots it off by claiming to have the final answer on everything: “Our only source for absolute, unchanging truth is God’s Word.”

    So that’s where he was going.

  2. Well, Hambo actually has a point. The festering sh^thole that is Women’s Studies does threaten legitimate science. In precisely the same way creationists at every level of the educational system undercut the real science related to evolution. Good comparison Hambo. Ideology ruins science. Nice own goal.

  3. Where exactly does one get a PhD in “creation science” ????

  4. Dave Luckett

    Kosh, anywhere the best printed sheepskins are sold, but gilding costs extra. Nothing but the best, y’know.

  5. The only Biblical passage I know off-hand which treats of Ken’s concerns here is Genesis 5:2 (KJV):

    Male and female created he them

    Which sounds pretty unambiguous at first–except, I can’t find any following passage which prohibits anyone from subsequently changing either their sex or their gender. I mean, if that was prohibited, shouldn’t there be a bit more legalese to that effect here, something to indicate that any end-user modifications rendered the Warranty void, or something?

    Absent that, I don’t see a Biblical objection here…

  6. “We can’t figure out where Hambo thinks he’s going with this.”
    It’s a classical example of projection, ie the most extreme form of the Tu Quoque. However like SG already points out he fails, because he is doing exactly not that what he asks from scientists.

  7. Megalonyx says: “The only Biblical passage I know off-hand which treats of Ken’s concerns …”

    There is also Matthew 19:12, which I don’t pretend to understand:

    For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

  8. Male and female he created them
    Has been, seriously, taken to mean that the first humans created on day six were hermaphrodite.

  9. TomS: I was going to wonder if the bit about creating male and female “in his image” meant “he/she/it” is an appropriate way to refer to gods, not only because we have no idea whether they actually exist.

  10. Contrmporary English uses the pronoun “they” with no commitment as to gender or number.

  11. So, how’s Andrew’s research getting on, Ken?

  12. @Megalonyx

    In addition to containing no prohibition against changing sex (gender, whatever), in order for that verse to mean what ol’ Hambo wants it to mean, it should properly have said

    “Male and female, respectively, created he them. No backsies.”

    Otherwise, neither changing sex nor hermaphroditism is prohibited, as noted by TomS.

  13. I just read the letter ol’ Hambo’s talking about (Academics are being harassed over their research into transgender issues).

    I honestly don’t think they could have vagued up their accusations the least bit more.

  14. So these academics are attacking transgender movement, no doubt for religious reasons and are now upset someone is attacking them for their arbitrary prejudice, did I get this right? Religious conservatives are always harping about someone infringing on their right to hate.