Hambo Says: Teach the Controversy

From time to time we’ve seen hard-core creationists like Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else — embrace the allegedly scientific dogmas of the Discoveroids — see, for example: Discoveroids and Hambo, Together Again. It’s what we call the Great Creationist Coalescence (the GCC), and now it’s happening again.

Hambo just posted this at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: Are Creationists Trying to Stop “Sound Science Education”? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

A blog appeared recently on the website for Americans United for Separation of Church and State titled, “Creationists Remain Hard at Work Trying to Block Sound Science Education.” It laments the tide of public opinion against evolution in the US and the way this influences how teachers present evolutionary ideas in the classroom. But I think headline should read instead, “AU Works Hard to Stop Every Student from Being Taught the Truth Regarding Evolution.”

Ol’ Hambo realizes that it’s hopeless trying to outlaw the teaching of evolution in state-run schools, so he’s arguing for a tactic of the Discoveroids: Teach the Controversy. He says:

AU [Americans United] is really a group (just like the FFRF [Freedom From Religion Foundation]) that bullies those who don’t agree with them, trying to impose their anti-God religion of evolution on all students. They want every child to believe they’re just animals and that life is ultimately meaningless (the logical outcome of an evolutionary, atheistic worldview). I thought I would address several of the misleading themes and statements made throughout the article.

Oh, goodie! This should be fun. Hambo tells us:

First, we need to challenge their claim that creationists don’t want students taught evolution. As we’ve said before, we don’t fight the idea of children learning about evolution (and we don’t even insist creation must be taught in school!) — but we want them to learn about evolution, warts and all. Sadly, the massive problems with evolution [Hee hee!] are rarely presented. Instead it’s taught as fact in most classrooms throughout the nation.

It’s a diabolical conspiracy! Hambo continues:

Here are just two of the many problems with evolutionary ideas:

Get reader, dear reader. The fun begins. This is evolution’s first problem:

Natural selection and mutations are said to be the driving forces of evolution. And yet neither of these observable processes can account for the brand-new traits that need to be gained to turn molecules into a man over time. There’s no known naturalistic process that can create brand-new traits. Such processes only act on the genetic diversity already present. That’s a huge, insurmountable challenge to evolution!

Ah yes, evolution can’t create new “information.” That’s another Discoveroid doctrine, and Hambo has previously embraced it — see Hambo Says Bacteria Don’t Evolve. Okay, here comes Hambo’s second problem with evolution:

The origin of life: the law of biogenesis tells us life always comes from other life. [Groan!] If evolution happened, this law had to be broken at least once. Now, many evolutionists get around this by saying evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life — that it’s a different issue. But without an origin for life, you can’t have evolution.

Evolution breaks the law of biogenesis — which exists only in the fantasies of creationists. It’s debunked in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Let’s read on:

And the truth is that, by far, the majority of teachers present evolution as fact to their public school students. Science textbooks used in these schools promote evolution as fact. Most teachers who reject evolution are afraid to even mention any of this, as they’re fearful they’ll be fired because of bullies like AU, FFRF, etc. AU is fearful that even one teacher somewhere might teach kids the truth about evolution — that it’s a belief not confirmed by observational science.

Yes, we all live in fear that someone might reveal The Truth. Another excerpt:

My challenge to AU (as I gave to Bill Nye “the Science Guy”): name one technological achievement that requires belief in naturalistic evolution. There’s none!

*Groan* That’s another old clunker — see Ken Ham Says Evolution Is Useless. It’s debunked in the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims: The theory of evolution is useless, without practical application. We should also mention that the technological achievements based on Genesis are, ah, somewhat elusive. Here’s more:

Students won’t fail to grow up to be scientists because they lacked evolutionary education, as the blog claims. Many of the greatest scientists of the past — including the likes of Sir Isaac Newton — were creationists and studied creation because of their love for and knowledge of God and his Word.

Everyone in Newton’s time was a creationist, but the work for which Newton is famous — like gravity and the laws of motion — have nothing to do with creationism. And now we come to the end:

Ultimately, the AU blog vilifies creationists because of a lack of a true understanding of the real issue. It’s not a battle of science vs. religion, or science vs. the Bible. The real issue is on a worldview level: whose authority will you trust? Man’s or God’s? Which foundation you choose determines how you interpret the evidence. The issue is a worldview battle!

That’s it, dear reader. And so we leave ol’ Hambo, as he raves and rants about the worldview battle. But we can’t help wondering: If there’s an inmate in some lunatic asylum who insists he’s Napoleon, should his claims be taught in history classes? And we also wonder: What do the Discoveroids think about Hambo’s adoption of yet another of their arguments?

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 “Hambo Says: Teach the Controversy

  1. [K. Ham:] “The origin of life: the law of biogenesis tells us life always comes from other life”

    Except when life comes from divine magic, that is. A better name would be “Law of the God of the Gaps”.

    “name one technological achievement that requires belief in naturalistic evolution. There’s none!”

    That’s mostly true…. because you don’t have to believe in evolution, you just have to understand the science behind. When you understand it, you realize the real power of “naturalistic” reasoning.

    Concerning creationism, creationists do not even agree on the “science” behind. And the bible technology is somewhat outdated.

  2. Michael Fugate

    Not to mention, their claim that life begins at conception. No life comes from life – sperm and eggs are just as alive as a zygote.

  3. There was another long-term evolution experiment that was reported on the news:
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181205134047.htm
    ScienceDaily December 5, 2018
    30 years of experimental evoluton results in new sex chromosome
    Researchers report new findings of an experimental evolutionary project that ran for 30 years on the genomic mechanisms of sex determination in swordtail fish
    Nature Communications 2018 9(1) doi: 10.1038/s41467-18-07648-2

  4. Young Earth creationists with their 6,000 year old universe should just stick to geology. Biology is too complicated for them. “Name one technological achievement that requires belief in geology” – that would make a nice new headline for Ham.

  5. “Students won’t fail to grow up to be scientists because they lacked evolutionary education, as the blog claims.”
    BWAHAHAHAHA!
    Dear Ol’Hambo, how many creacrap geologists work for companies like Shell again?

    “Whose authority will you trust? Man’s or God’s?”
    Ol’Hambo, every time you turn on your computer or start your car your answer is “man’s”. Of not try to do this by praying.

  6. The whole “it has no practical application” argument is simply void, as it can just as easily be applied to any other theoretical discipline. In fact, high school students are happy to apply this to any course they don’t like: what’s the practical use of history?

    And the last argument is just plain weird. If you define the issue as “man’s word against God’s”, it is about science vs. religion.

    Oh and, the “those 17th century scientists were creationists” argument must die and its putrid corpse be dissolved in salpetric acid.

  7. Newton didn’t accept the plain word of the Bible about the Earth and the Sun. And, as far as I know, he didn’t have an explanation alternative to evolution.

  8. There is no known naturalistic process that can …
    That can be doubted. Yet:
    There is no known other-than-naturalistic process.

  9. Laurettte McGovern

    How would one actually “teach” creationism, except to say, “It’s compete bollocks” ? Then a teacher would move on to real science. I suppose I could live with that.

  10. Edited: @FrankB, Stephen Meyer did work as a geophysicist for Atlantic Richfield, but of course he is OEC. Presumably he believes that the successions of fossil kinds that oil prospectors use when dating rocks were the result of separate special creations

  11. Great idea, Kenny! I’ll be at your church sunday school first thing Sunday morning to help teach the controversy of your religious claims.

    BTW… “public opinion against evolution”…… fortunately, science and truth aren’t determined by public opinion, or should we say Argumentum ad Populum.

  12. “Everyone in Newton’s time was a creationist”

    And the HAMsters argument also works for alchemy and since Newton endorsed alchemy. Fortunately science is not a belief system so it changes as new discoveries are made, quite the opposite of unshakable religious conviction that the willfully ignorant are so proud about.

  13. Karl Goldsmith

    It’s digusting how they lie to children, they are even on the board of a school.

  14. @PaulB: “of course he is OEC”
    You’re right – I should have written YEC-geologists.

  15. Karl Goldsmith, can you give details? What country, and how funded?

  16. There is an error in the link to TomS’s sciencedaily reference.

  17. Looks like I goofed it too!