Ken Ham and National Absurdity Day

All the news today seems to be generated by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else, but we can’t pass up what he just posted at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: Don’t Fall for Absurd Thinking This National Absurdity Day. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Everyone knows about April Fool’s Day, which always falls on April 1. But did you know today is called National Absurdity Day? [What?] It’s a day to encourage people to embrace the absurd and ridiculous.

Wowie — it’s the perfect day for creationists! But Hambo doesn’t get it. He’s irony impaired, so he says:

But so many people around the world already do embrace something utterly absurd — evolutionary ideas! So today I want to do the opposite of what this day intends and encourage people to leave absurd ideas and, instead, base their thinking on God’s infallible Word.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Did we say he was irony impaired? It’s far worse than that, but words fail us. Let’s just keep reading:

What are some ways that evolutionary ideas are absurd? Here are just three:

Get ready, dear reader. What follows is Hambo’s list of three “absurdities” of evolution: Here’s the first:

Life came from non-life. Evolutionists believe that, at some time in the past, non-living chemicals somehow become alive (i.e., by natural processes, the information system and complex language system of DNA came about), leading to the incredible array of life that we have today. But there is no consensus among the evolutionary community on how this happened, and many evolutionists ignore the problem altogether by claiming evolution only applies to life, so it isn’t an evolutionary problem to explain how life came from non-life. Bottom line: matter by itself just can’t produce genetic information or a language system — it’s impossible.

If Hambo says it’s impossible, it must be The Truth. He concludes his first “absurdity” with this:

The Law of Biogenesis, one of the few laws of biology, says that life only comes from other life. To believe in chemical evolution (life from non-life), you have to believe this law was somehow broken at least once.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The Law of Biogenesis is a creationist fiction. We’ll quote what we said in Common Creationist Claims Confuted:

That so-called “law” which allegedly disproves evolution is a childish misunderstanding of Louis Pasteur’s work on spontaneous generation. This distortion of Louis Pasteur’s work is found only in creationist literature. Pasteur demonstrated that sealing food from airborne contamination would end the supposed “spontaneous generation” of mold and such. This has nothing to do with Darwin’s theory of evolution or with the ultimate origin of living things. Some fool or freak or fraud posted a crazed misinterpretation of Pasteur’s work at a creationist website and it’s been endlessly repeated ever since. Also, see Abiogenesis FAQs: Articles on the Origin of Life.

Okay, now for Hambo’s second “absurdity.” He tells us:

Mutations and natural selection drive evolution. Evolutionists believe that the driving forces of biological evolution are mutations and natural selection. We observe that both of these processes shape populations of organisms in the present and the genetic diversity they already possess. But what we don’t observe is mutations or natural selection turning one kind of organism into another kind. While they bring out variation within a kind (e.g., the finch kind), they don’t turn one kind into another — nor can they! In order to turn one kind into another kind, huge amounts of brand-new genetic material would need to be added (just think of the number of genetic differences between a fish, a bird, and a mammal!). And neither mutations nor natural selection has ever been observed adding this required genetic information.

He’s right, you know. No one has ever seen a crocodile transformed into horse. So his second absurdity is pretty good — for National Absurdity Day. Now for the third item on his list:

We’re related to everything. Evolutionists believe we’re related to everything — mushrooms, bacteria, frogs, hummingbirds, horses, etc. But pause and think about the massive differences between any two organisms (orchids, fruit flies, and wildebeests, for example). While we do share some similarities with certain organisms (this is known as homology), the differences are much vaster than any similarities. The sheer number of genetic differences that evolution must account for (with no known mechanism to generate brand-new genetic information!) is mind-boggling.

In other words, Hambo ain’t no kin to no monkey! Having revealed the three absurdities, he finishes with this:

So many people blindly trust evolutionary ideas and even use them as an excuse to ignore God and his Word. But what we see in creation doesn’t confirm evolutionary ideas — it confirms what we read and expect from Scripture. [Yes!] Instead of trusting in absurd ideas, created by fallible, sinful human beings, we should start with the Word of the Creator who was actually there and has told us what happened.

So there you are, dear reader. There’s no better way to celebrate National Absurdity Day than to join ol’ Hambo and — for one day a year — be a creationist.

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

13 responses to “Ken Ham and National Absurdity Day

  1. And once again there is no alternative explanation.

  2. “But what we don’t observe is mutations or natural selection turning one kind of organism into another kind.”

    Note that the HAMster didn’t define “kind”, something that creationists have never been able to agree upon without some paleontological and molecular biological evidence that the kinds are indeed genetically related.

    We also don’t directly observe Uranium 238 radioactive decay turning into 100% Lead 206 (multiple intermediate decay products with half lives as long as about 4.5B years) due to the long half life. Likewise no one has seen a planet completely form from interstellar debris around a parent star, etc. All of these processes are far beyond a single human lifetime but science has conclusive evidence that these naturally happen. We also have conclusive evidence that biblical writings are primitive and the believers like Ham often lie to support their irrational worldviews.

    The HAMster brought his traveling circus act to the US because he was failing to make any headway in Australia and it has proven to be quite lucrative for him due to the large number of extra credulous people within the US.

  3. Yes, since evolution doesn’t say anything so vague and incoherent about turning “one kind of organism into another kind”, Ham’s — or any other creationist’s — argument is hardly a serious objection.

    They’ve had ample time and opportunity to understand Darwin’s concept of descent with modification. Since secondary students can get this, we’re justified, I think, in questioning creationists’ basic intelligence, notwithstanding their adherence to dogmatic faith, which impedes clear thinking.

  4. Michael Fugate

    Turning one kind into another – by intelligent design:
    http://www.montypython.net/scripts/terrier.php

  5. National Absurdity Day seems to be bringing our everyone’s inner Python.

    Here’s my take on their Election Night sketch:

    Evolutionists (voiceover: “Sensible Party”): 12, 346 votes.
    Theistic evolutionists (“Slightly Silly”): 8, 912 votes.
    Intelligent Designers (“Silly Party”): 5,123 votes.
    Creationists (“Very Silly”): 87 votes.

  6. Ham’s con is so palpable that it’s hard to believe that even he believes it. I suppose it’s possible, the human talent for self-deception being so great. I don’t think so, though. Look at his career.

    He started out in Ipswich, Queensland, Australia, a coal town where one of the chief civic amusements is figuring out how many ways you’re your own cousin. His first move was to quarrel with his fundawhacko church there. They’re still extant, still passing out cyclostyled one-sheets at street stalls and fairgrounds, and going nowhere. He formed his own “ministry”, but that also went nowhere, so he moved to the US. Why? He said it himself: “America was more the centre of the Christian world and business world.” That is, he moved there for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks: because that’s where the money is.

    In the US he associated at first with ICR and anybody else in the whoop-de-doo moneycult who’d give him a leg up, but he always knew that the big bucks weren’t in working for somebody else. So again, he went to where the money is. Look at that location: small town Kentucky, but handy to more prosperous areas. Not the deep south, the real Bible belt – too much competition, and not enough money. But someplace with enough True Believers to be easy marks. Shrewd. Nobody ever said Ken wasn’t shrewd.

    So now he’s running a fine little business empire all his own, with no need to split the take, and what he says, goes. And he alone is responsible for the results.

    And those results? “By their fruits you will know them” is, to my mind, a very good rule. Take a look at the fruits of Ken Ham. It’s a ministry, he says – but the only person to whom it ministers is Ken Ham. Feeding the poor, nursing the sick, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless, protecting the weak, championing the downtrodden – all are well below the Ken Ham radar. But separating suckers from their money by selling them what all con-men sell – nothing – that’s what it’s all about.

    Follow the money. Assess the fruits. Grade by results. Don’t go on what he says, go on what he does. Only then can you arrive at a true assessment of the Ham motivations and character. It’s somewhat paradoxical that he comes out of that process looking worse than if he were assessed to be merely an honest fanatic. Fanatics, after all, can do far greater damage than even the most cynical of con-men. But that’s the result of an evidence-driven assessment.

    Evidence, schmevidence. When has that ever been useful when encountering a creationist?

  7. “But what we don’t observe is mutations or natural selection turning one kind of organism into another kind.”
    Of course not. That’s because no creationist ever has even tried to properly define the word “kind”. Well, Ol’Hambo, I define “kind” as the entire spectrum of life on Earth in past, present and future. As such I dare to predict that no form of Earthly life will ever evolve into an extraterrestrial kind.

    “While we do share some similarities with certain organisms (this is known as homology), the differences are much vaster than any similarities.”
    Oops, perhaps I was mistaken. Now I think of it, the differences between Ol’Hambo and me are much vaster than any similarities. He’s definitely of a different kind, whatever that word means.

  8. @ChrisS
    And there are those that are beyond description:
    The geocentrists, “not even funny”, maybe 1 write-in vote
    The Flat-Earthers, “Dark horse”, 23

  9. Man, I’m still trying to figure out why Wombat turds are cubic. I don’t suppose that’s covered in the Bible too?

  10. Apparently, wombats are the only animal in the world with cube-shaped turds (another proud first for Australia). So, not only did they have to travel to Australia from Turkey, or wherever the ark touched down, AND left no sign of their transit. But along the way, their bodies adapted to produce cubed poo. Even Ken Ham would have trouble keeping a straight face while he explained that one.

    But the best bit is that these guys presented a paper, “How do wombats make cubed poo?” at, wait for it, a meeting of the “the APS Division of Fluid Dynamics”. Do those guys have a sense of humour, or what.

  11. I think the wombatologists are aiming for an IgNobel prize

  12. Derek Freyberg

    @Paul Braterman:
    They have to be at least as likely as the Japanese doctor who actually won one for developing a technique for doing a self-colonoscopy.

  13. Christine Janis

    @ Derek Freyberg:

    That sounds about where Ken Ham is headed.