Hambo Proves Evolution Is Evil

This news was posted by PhysOrg about ten days ago: Lab revokes honors for controversial DNA scientist Watson. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

James Watson, the Nobel Prize-winning DNA scientist who lost his job in 2007 for expressing racist views, was stripped of several honorary titles Friday by the New York lab he once headed. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said it was reacting to Watson’s remarks in a television documentary aired earlier this month.

Everyone knows who James Watson is. That Wikipedia article has a section about his Comments on race. He should know better. PhysOrg say this about the recent documentary he was in:

In the film, Watson said his views about intelligence and race had not changed since 2007, when he told a magazine that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — where all the testing says not really.”

Okay, enough of that. Now for the reaction of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. He just posted this at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: Lab Strips Co-Discoverer of DNA of His Titles. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

James Watson, the co-discoverer of the double-helix shape of DNA, was recently stripped of his honorary titles by the laboratory where he did most of his research. Why would his lab strip a scientist, who made such an incredible discovery, of his titles? Because of his racist views.

He tells the sordid tale, after which he preaches to us:

But if this lab wants to be consistent, they also need to ban Charles Darwin’s books, as his book, The Descent of Man, is blatantly racist. Most people have never read Darwin’s Origin of the Species let alone The Descent of Man (published 12 years after the Origin) and probably don’t want to as they would then have to admit Darwin’s shocking evolutionary racism [link omitted]!

That’s an old creationist clunker, about which we wrote Racism, Eugenics, and Darwin, and also Discovery Institute: Darwin = Racism.

But now Hambo has Watson to add to the tale. Don’t you get it, dear reader? First Darwin, now Watson. Hey — how much evidence do you need? Evolution is evil! He gleefully continues:

Evolution is an inherently racist philosophy. [Gasp!] It (and certain evolutionists who are consistent with its principles, such as James Watson) stands in sharp contrast to the biblical worldview. There’s no room in a biblical worldview for any kinds of racist attitudes.

He goes on and on with the same stuff he’s been babbling about lately — you know how it goes. Creationists aren’t racist because they believe in Adam & Eve, and Noah’s ark — see Ken Ham Is Not Prejudiced.

So there you are. Evolutionists are bad, creationists are good. If you didn’t believe it before, now there’s Watson. Case closed.

Copyright © 2019. 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

45 responses to “Hambo Proves Evolution Is Evil

  1. Derek Freyberg

    “Case closed.”
    If you’re referring to Hambo, I think you mean “Mind closed.”
    Sure there are some scientists with racist views on intelligence – William Shockley, of transistor fame, is another – but it’s only because Watson worked on DNA that makes him Ham-worthy. And he didn’t do his DNA work at Cold Spring Harbor – he did it in England, not that that matters in any way. Cold Spring Harbor pulled the plug on Watson because he was still affiliated with them, and they no longer wanted the association.
    As for Darwin, he was the product of his time, and we should not judge him entirely by ours.

  2. siluriantrilobite

    I wonder why Ham accepted the Allosaurus skeleton from Neo-Confederate white supremacist and former League of the South board member Michael Peroutka?

  3. Ham is not a racist. But he certainly depends on his followers to have a lower intelligence than most.

  4. Michael Fugate

    It is nice that Ham is opposed to racism. It is not nice that he claims those who accept evolution are racist. When Darwin published OtOoS in 1859, the US has not yet started the Civil War over slavery. Not to mention the US’s
    and Australia’s sustained abuse of their indigenous people up to the present. Ham continues to other individuals over sex and gender – he needs much more New Testament and much less Old Testament before he can criticize those who accept evolution.

  5. People who are obsessed with “race” (usually right-leaning), and those obsessed with “racism” (usually left-liberal) have one thing in common: a belief in seeing themselves as superior– genetically in the former; morally in the latter. Both are equally annoying (and I include myself in the latter camp).

    But if Ham really wants to help eradicate the scourge of “racism”, why not start with extremist Jews’ fantasy of themselves as a “chosen” people, possessed of a special covenant with their god? But that would entail questioning the whole biblical basis for these collective myths, and we can’t have that, can we?

  6. @ ChrisS – yes, this whole ‘my god is better than yours’, typical for fundamentalism, is the worst form of arrogance.

  7. Uh, Hambo — even if evolution were evil (which it isn’t), that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

  8. “There’s no room in a biblical worldview for any kinds of racist attitudes.”
    Yeah, yeah.


    Why would I believe Ol’Hambo and not Capitein? Or better still, neither of them?
    Btw what’s the problem for Ol’Hambo? Given the Fall and man’s inherent sinful nature (which of course includes racism), why care? Racist or not, it doesn’t matter, as long as you put your faith in Jesus’ hands and ask him for forgiveness. Where Ol’Hambo serious he would understand that he’s fighting against the beer quay, as we Dutchies say.

  9. Ham: There’s no room in a biblical worldview for any kinds of racist attitudes.

    Genesis 9:25: Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren

    God’s word or man’s word. who’re you going to believe?

  10. What the Hamster either doesn’t realize or won’t acknowledge is that even if it were true that Darwin was a racist, evolution would not be invalidated. There’s simply too much evidence supporting the theory, and neither Darwin’s supposed bigotry nor James Watson’s apparently actual prejudices has any bearing on the matter.

    This is an old creationist dodge: if the facts don’t disprove Darwinism, attack its morality instead.

  11. Is there any good treatment of the KluKluxKlan’s opposition to evolution?
    It’s a minor detail, among its white nativist Christianity, but it is there.

  12. The Klan always supported William Jennings Bryan in his Presidential campaigns.

  13. I came across this, in my blog post on Scopes, https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2015/09/26/the-scopes-monkey-trial-part-2-evidence-confrontation-resolution-consequences/ :In the run-up to the case, we even have the involvement of Billy Sunday, possibly the greatest of all pre-television evangelists, whose 18 day crusade in Memphis, Tennessee, was attended by some 200,000 people. Billy Sunday told his audiences that Darwin was an infidel: “To hell with the Modernists. Education today is chained to the devil’s throne. Teach evolution? Teaching about pre-historic man? No such thing as prehistoric man.” (Billy Sunday appealed to a broad public. He hosted a “Negro Night”, which 15,000 attended. There was also a Klan Night.

  14. @Eric L
    “Even if it were true that Darwin was a racist…”

    Indeed, it would be irrelevant to evolution, but such is the time we live in now– with its thirst for revenging itself on those figures from the past who fail to meet the current correct standards– that great men and women will be judged for their “crimes” of character, not for the value of their discoveries or works.

  15. There’s no room in a biblical worldview for any kinds of racist attitudes.

    To Paul Braterman’s point about the inherent racism within the Bible here is except from a NY Times article in 2003:

    For many scholars, though, the enigmatic tale in Genesis 9 describing how Noah cursed the descendants of his son Ham with servitude remains a way to explore the complex origins of the concept of race: how and why did people begin to see themselves as racially divided?

    In the biblical account, Noah and his family are not described in racial terms. But as the story echoed through the centuries and around the world, variously interpreted by Islamic, Christian and Jewish scholars, Ham came to be widely portrayed as black; blackness, servitude and the idea of racial hierarchy became inextricably linked.

    By the 19th century, many historians agree, the belief that African-Americans were descendants of Ham was a primary justification for slavery among Southern Christians.

    The debate about just what the story of Ham and Noah means has marched on into the 21st century. Today scholars are increasingly reading documents in the authors’ original languages and going further back in time and to more places, as well as calling on disciplines like sociology and classics. Their ambitions are also bigger than just parsing Ham.

  16. Of course one of the most racist countries of the 20th Century, 1950-1990 South Africa, saw the Dutch Reformed Church fully support apartheid. Given that this church has the same origin as the Reformed Churches that promote creacrap in the Netherlands (like my beloved Logos.nl) and are popular in the Dutch Bible Belt it’s a safe bet that it’s members tend to reject evolution theory. But I couldn’t find any confirming (nor contradicting) evidence on internet.

  17. Re: South Africa
    The famous “Oom Paul” Kruger, leader of the Dutch Boers, was a famous believer in the Flat Earth on the basis of the Bible.

  18. @TomS
    Then he’s a better Christian than Ken Ham.

  19. Aha! I’m so proud! My native country commemorates a FETer! Amsterdam, Den Haag, Zaandam ao.

  20. Does Hambo have a denominational affiliation?

  21. Karl Goldsmith

    This is Ken Ham, a bloke who claimed he isn’t white.

  22. It’s sad that James Watson doesn’t understand the debate that went on in genetics back in the 1970s. Blacks don’t have lower intelligence than other races (which don’t really exist). The IQ tests weren’t valid at the time. And we figured out why. They had to be re-standardized. Furthermore IQ is not a total indicator of human intelligence. We don’t really know what intelligence really means. There are so many different skills. Some are obviously better at some things than others. I’m crap at writing poetry and musical lyrics, but I’m pretty good at math and science. Biologically speaking “race” doesn’t exist since the humans on this planet share virtually all their genetic material. The differences between any two groups you want to compare is not greater than the differences within the two groups. Different skin colors don’t mean different races. The allelic differences represent a very tiny difference in the DNA from any two individuals. I really wish we could get away from talking about different races at all, since there is only one race, the human race.

  23. Biokid, I believe that Jerry Coyne and other evolutionary biologists would argue that there are indeed significant genetic differences among some subpopulations of the human species, which could be considered “race.”

  24. Does “race” exist? Darwin wasn’t totally convinced, going by the various authors he quoted in the “Descent” who failed to agree on a standard definition. All depends on who you ask, really (and maybe what side of the political fence they fall on). Coyne would argue that some genetic differences exist between some ethnic groups, accounting for small variations.

    An alt-righter would contend: Hell, yes, race exists; and that blacks have lower IQ measures. But the alt-right fetishizes IQ, and Biokid is right that intelligence can’t be measured solely by IQ alone. For all their veneration of IQ, most of the alt-right appear to be Christian ‘vangies who can’t even begin to distinguish their Bible myths from reality.

  25. The structure of DNA is a fact about the world and shouldn’t be a matter of disagreement between evolutionists and creationists (in fact, some people point to its complexity as an argument for God). It’s pure accident that one of its discoverers happens to be an evolutionist.

  26. Ofccourse, there are subpopuations of humans. But they have little to do with what have been traditonally called “races”. AIUI, and I am not a scientist, consider the population of sub-Sharan Africa (not counting those who have immigrated in the last few centuries). There is more variation than there is in the rest of the world.
    If we take a lok at what areas of the world have been the wealthiest, or the most advanced in the arts, this has changed widely all over the world just in the last few millenia (which is nothing in an evolutionary scale). Think of the ups and downs in Egypt in historical times. What can genetics have had to do with that?

  27. @Douglas E; up to a point. There is more genetic variation within subsaharan Africa than in the rest of the world put together, and much blurring of lines wherever you choose to draw them

  28. @TomS
    Yes, but genetics influences traits. If you’re referring to the colorful upheavals of the Egyptian dynasties, surely genetic in-breeding played some part, too?

  29. @ChrisS
    I am thinking about thousands of years of Egypt. First of all, take a high point of the pyramids or around the time of Rameses II, and then skip to the time wen Alexandria was the center of Hellenistic culture, and then once again when Cairo was the capital of the Fatimid Caliphate.
    There are plenty of examples from world history.

  30. Talking about Ancient Egypt, the famous large pyramids are dated to have been finished around 2560 BC. We know that pretty accurately. According to creation.com the Flood occurred 2304 BC, give or take 11 years. No further comments needed.

  31. The ancient Egyptians invented SCUBA. That’s how they were able to work on the pyramids while the world was underwater.

    James Cameron eat your heart out.

  32. “give or take 11 years”
    I thought the Bible is the absolute truth. No “give or take”, that is like human, secular approximations.

  33. @Hans435, AiG has an article on “Were the pyramids built before the flood?” No they couldn’t have been for three reasons. Egypt was founded by Noah’s grandson, Mizraim. The pyramids show no signs of flood damage. And, the real clincher, they are built on top of fossiliferous sediments laid down during the flood, so the pyramids must have been later.

    So obviously, the conventional chronology is wrong, just as free ring chronology and radiometric chronology is wrong. The Egyptian records had been misinterpreted as showing the various Pharaohs as reigning in series,when often they were reigning in parallel, as when sons came to the throne during their father’s lifetime, or possibly one was reigning over Upper Egypt and the other one over Lower Egypt.

    I’m surprised you couldn’t work all this out for yourself, You’re obviously not wearing your biblical glasses. Shame on you

  34. The TRUTH is revealed in the answers in Genesis article, How does Man’s history fit in with the Bible Timeline?

  35. BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! The Egyptians don’t even know how to interpret their own history! It takes the special genius of AiG to set them straight. How marvelous is that? It’s like secular Jews rejecting the Exodus myth, but along come the ‘vangie gentile Christians to give them a proper history lesson.

    Paul, those fossil sediments around Gizeh are limestone, aren’t they? Are AiG really claiming limestone deposits can be due to a flood? They’re accretional, aren’t they, those sort of deposits? It’s like the drowning shark from a few posts back: why would marine organisms drown? What sort of cut-rate “design” is that?

  36. Are you saying that you would believe what the Egyptians wrote rather than the eyewitness account of God?
    Anyway, everyone knows that the Israelite slaves built the Pyramids.

  37. @ChrisS, you ignorant heathen! That’s exactly what AiG claims; see article at Archaeology/Ancient Egypt/Were the pyramids built before the flood. As that great scholar Bodie Hodge informs us, “secular literature commonly dates the Great Pyramid around 2550 BC. If this date is correct, then the Great Pyramid existed before the Flood of Noah’s day, which occurred around 2350 BC and destroyed everything on earth [Bible reference]! Obviously, something is askew.” He then gives the three arguments that I quoted, any one of which on its own is totally convincing to the virtuous and right-thinking.

    Indeed, I have added nothing to Bodie’s sacred text. I wold not presume …

    But these days, there are even observant Jewish rabbis beginning to argue that Exodus is a myth. Armageddon is surely approaching. Repent!

  38. @ Paul B – I guess that’s one of the reasons for some YECs to claim an age of 10,000 years, or even pushing to 12,000 years. Even our SC has been wrestling with that question https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/was-creation-6000-or-10000-years-ago/
    But there is no place for any doubts for a real Young Earther like Ken Ham.

  39. @hans435
    Thanks for the reference. I don’t remember reading this, but it is interesting. Some Young Earth Creationists, so it says, accept as much as 50,000 years?!
    That happens to be close to the conventional radiocarbon dating being limited to about 50,000 years. Is that a coincidence?

  40. @ TomS – Not sure if carbon dating is the reason, but I guess not. Why should you trust C-14 and dismiss all other radio-dating methods.
    I am only following the hardcore, exclusively literal YE disciples. I wonder when they are going to merge with the flat earthers. Currently they are looking down on the flat earthers and treat them with ridicule, as some kind of crazy nuts, totally oblivious to real science.

  41. Aaaahhh, how sweet …. “the secular dating system”.
    Say no more, wink wink, nudge nudge.

  42. @hans435
    Don’t forget geocentrism. I think that the majority of YECs want nothing to do with geocentirsm, and the majority of geocentrists want to make it clear that they are not Flat Earth believers.
    Obviously, the Flat Earth implies geocentrism. And geocentrism is based on a literal reading of the Bible, and I think that all of the geocentrists are Young Earth Creatoinists.

  43. Btw, now we’re strolling down the quiet lanes of our dear SC’s glorious past, I met this one:


    Well protected against copy/paste. The beloved IDiots from Seattle wrote a gem that reminded me of an infamous quote from the Vietnam war. Their version basically means that to save science we must destroy the scientific method. The full quotes:

    “Far from attacking science (as has been claimed), we are instead challenging scientific materialism – the simplistic philosophy or world-view that claims that all of reality can be reduced to, or derived from, matter and energy alone. We believe that this is a defense of sound science.”

    “We are challenging the philosophy of scientific materialism, not science itself.”

  44. @ TomS – “I think that all of the geocentrists are Young Earth Creatoinists.”
    Seems to be the case. I just looked up Robert Sungenis, the spokesperson for the modern geocentrist movement. Yes, he is.
    @ FrankB – “We are challenging the philosophy of scientific materialism, not science itself.” With all the evolution going on in the ID world, they can’t shed their dislike for methodological naturalism to this date.