Hambo’s New Book Destroys Evolution

It’s all over. It was fun while it lasted, but evolution is finished now. Totally.

It’s all explained in a new post by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. You’ll find it at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry. The title is New Book Glass House Shatters Evolutionary Ideas. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

“Those who live in glass houses, shouldn’t throw stones.” This old adage warns people with a fragile worldview not to attack the worldview of others. And this is a good warning for those who hold to evolutionary ideas — it’s a glass house, cracking and ready to shatter. [Gasp!] We’re excited to announce we have a new eye-opening book, edited by Bodie Hodge and me, available for pre-order, Glass House: Shattering the Myth of Evolution. [Link omitted]

Hambo’s link is to his own website. Instead, here’s the book at Amazon. The publisher is Master Books, a name we’ve encountered before, but only in connection with Hambo’s books — see Ken Ham — Self-Published Genius?

Returning to Hambo’s post, he says:

Evolutionists work hard to convince others that their evolutionary worldview is built on rock-solid foundations — that it’s the foundation for biology, and, without it, modern science wouldn’t be possible. But this is merely a distraction from the fact that their house is only made of glass — and that glass is cracking.

Ooooooooooooh! The glass is cracking. He tells us:

There is not one example of technology that has been developed that requires belief in evolution! Evolution is a religion — an attempt by fallible man to explain life and its origin without God.

Egad — he’s right! Your automobile doesn’t run on evolution. Aircraft don’t fly on evolution. Your computer doesn’t use evolution. It’s a religion! Hambo continues:

Throughout Glass House, experts such as Dr. David Menton, Dr. Georgia Purdom, and Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson [AIG’s creation scientists], as well as Bodie Hodge [Hambo’s son-in-law] and me, expose the flaws in common evolutionary arguments such as: the evolutionary horse sequence, chromosome 2 fusion, whale fossils, dinosaur-to-bird evolution, Neanderthals and Homo erectus, and more. This cutting-edge, laymen-level book dismantles evolution argument by argument.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The book’s got every creationist clunker in the world. One last excerpt:

Biological evolution is taught as fact in public schools, museums, colleges, and through the media. But it is actually a philosophy — a worldview built on a shaky interpretation of the evidence. For those who are willing to reconsider their assumptions, it is obvious there are major challenges within evolutionary thought.

The rest of his post is promotion for the book, so we’ll let you explore that on your own. What can we say now? Well, it was fun being a Darwinist, but Hambo’s book has put an end to that. There’s nothing left to do but move to Kentucky and buy a lifetime pass to the ark. No doubt you agree, so we’ll see you there.

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

48 responses to “Hambo’s New Book Destroys Evolution

  1. Christine Janis

    With a chapter title like: “What about Haeckel’s faked embryos: how do they relate to abortion?” how can it possibly go wrong?

  2. I went to the Amazon listing. There’s a click spot for reporting incorrect product information. I thought maybe it should be put in the fiction category but I see that it’s already in theology so it’s all good.

  3. Richard Bond

    This cutting-edge, laymen-level book…

    Oxymoron or inadvertent self-parody?

  4. Michael Fugate

    Menton spent 35 years in a tenure-track position and never made it to full professor – scholarship was obviously not his strong suit. And when you read his nonsense on dinosaurs and birds; fish and amphibians you will quickly see.why – it is only notable for what it omits.

  5. 1) ready to shatter
    The Imminent Demise of Evolution: the Longest Running Falsehood in Creatonism, by Glenn R. Morton

    2) There is not one example of technology that has been developed that requires belief in evolution!
    Wikiledia, “Applications of evolution”

    Where do we find the applications of creationism? Indeed, where to we find the description of what happens when creation/intelligent design does something? What technology could depend on an other-than-natural process?

  6. I wonder what they have to say about horse evolution. There is an excellent exposition by Joel Duff on his Naturalis Historia site, explaining why the ramifications of horse evolution now pose an unanswerable challenge to the creationist doctrine of “kinds”, and Christine and, to a much smaller extent, I have been defending his account against increasingly incoherent attacks from creationists.

  7. Michael Fugate

    Yes, which technology requires a belief in gods? Or in immaterial consciousness?

  8. Of course, that really isn’t the point is it? If you have a religion and I have a religion, yours is just wrong and mine right. More importantly, anything you base your religion on is wrong.

    You just drag science down into competing on a religious basis and not a factual one and declare victory because your starting point is bogus.

  9. I’d like Ol’Hambo to tell us which creationists work as geologists for companies like Esso and Shell.

  10. Stephen Meyer did work as a geophysicist for Atlantic Richfield. But he’s OEC

  11. Ross Cameron

    So these super-bacteria threatening patients world-wide aren`t evolving, just- er- um- changing? Just like their creator planned?

  12. Michael Fugate

    The thing most social conservatives know least is history (or is it the Bible?). Which is why creationists can keep repeating the imminent collapse of evolution, evolution led to racism, the US as a Christian nation, Jesus’ return any day for the past two thousand years, etc.

  13. @Michael Fugate
    When I see a statement like yours, I immediately try to think of a counter-example. But you might be right about that. They might really think that “the old time religion” is what they preach today. That the Pilgrim Fathers put up Christmas cribs, maybe.

  14. So that’s it, then. The good ship Evolution is going down, with all of us clinging to the handrails on the stern, like DiCaprio and Winslet, while bodies tumble hundreds of feet below.

    I shall miss you all. You, TomS, with your seemingly inexhaustible variations on why the design hypothesis continually fails. Michael Fugate, with your pithy remarks, and illuminating links. Paul Braterman, dear Paul Braterman. Draken. Docbill and Ochwil. RetiredSciguy, with your valuable insights. FrankB..ah, dear FrankB, with your wise admonishments and deconstruction of everyone else’s comments.

    But most of all, I shall miss you, Scarecrow…sorry, Curmudgeon. Who knew that the joyful quest for a brain would turn out to be undone by the superior intellects at AiG? It’s cruel, I know, but what can we do?

    I love each and every one of you.

    Now burn in the Lake of Fire, you miserable bastards!

  15. Michael Fugate

    Christine, That sounds fascinating – no doubt they tell us that abortion never existed until evolutionists made us animals solely to justify killing our young. It ties in with the creationist conspiracy theory link. Did you know there was not a single murder until 1859? Until then everyone believed we were hand-crafted in the womb by God himself and this prevented all killing of any human by the hand of another.

    Ham needs to give us at least a year – my academic senate requires that much time to change a course name. What should we do with “Introduction to Evolution and Ecology”? Change it to “Introduction to Silly Walks”?

  16. I think I’ll fork out the eleven bucks for the Kindle edition – just to bash and ridicule it on as many websites and blogs as I can.

  17. Charles Deetz ;)

    “There is not one example of technology that has been developed that requires belief in has disproven or disqualified evolution!”
    There I fixed it for you Hambo.

  18. @hans435
    Eleven bucks says you don’t make it past the first eleven pages. Just click
    on the ‘Look inside’ at the Amazon link to see what you’re up against.

  19. What does technology have to do with evolution? Nothing, just another straw man argument.
    Anyway, best hurry as this book is flying off the shelves, only $16.99 for 320 pages of enlightening creationist drivel, ranked (78,695) as a jewel for anyone’s home library!

  20. So, Hambo – you say that “Evolutionists work hard to convince others that their evolutionary worldview is built on rock-solid foundations…”

    Actually, that’s not quite right. They work hard developing the rock-solid foundations of evidence upon which the concept of evolution is based. They let the evidence do the convincing.

    Creationists such as yourself, on the other hand, spend all of their time and effort trying to convince the world that your Bronze Age ideas are the be-all and end-all of all we need to know, without bothering to uncover any supporting evidence.

    By touting ideas that are demonstrably false (six-day creation, 6,000 year-old universe, etc.), you do your religion a disservice. The Bible has much of value to teach us about human interactions, but by pushing the idea that the scriptures are totally infallible, you drive away those of us who understand the true nature of science. If you don’t believe me, please read the admonishments of St. Augustine. Look it up.

  21. I’d be curious to read Georgia Purdum’s chapter on chromosome 2. It seems open and shut as homologous with other primate’s karyotype.

  22. Karl Goldsmith

    Master books is a new leaf imprint owned by Tim Dudley, a friend of Ken, who is on the board of AiG, New Leaf is the largest contractor, with AiG paying them nearly $1.75 million.

  23. Hambone’s intellectual powers are not able to punch his way out of a st00pid bag, in fact he cannot even see the st00pid bag!

  24. Stephen Meyer worked at the Arco Oil and Gas Research Center in Plano, Texas. I never met him, heard of him or knew anyone who did at Arco. He apparently contributed zero accepted geologic or geophysical science while he was there. I’m sure the science done at the lab regarding subsurface geology in basins around the world was impossible for him to accept based on his religious beliefs. So he just ignored all the science and made up his pseudo science religious faux rationalizations which are the basis of his ministry. There were some scientists at the ARCO lab like Posamentier (who came over from Exxon, like me).

  25. @L.Long: “Hambone’s intellectual powers are not able to punch his way out of a st00pid bag, in fact he cannot even see the st00pid bag!”

    Put yourself into the shoes of a YEC: If the earth is billions of years old and if there was suffering and death before Adam & Eve, then their whole universe breaks down. In that case there is no god, Jesus was lying and everything becomes meaningless for them. They simply cannot accept an old universe.

  26. @hans435
    I know that this is the scenario that the creationists paint. But, IMHO, it is a scenario of their own making, a backstory invented to justify their rejection of evolution. They realize, however faintly, that they have no reason, other than their disgust at the thought of being related to the rest of the world of life (most so, because it is so obvously so, being closest to the chimps and the other apes), and they are desperate to find justification. So they invent this backstory, tailor the BIble to make it fit, and make it central to their religion.

  27. Michael Fugate

    I wonder how much of Ham is a regurgitation of “The Fundamentals”

    with chapters
    Science and Christian Faith – James Orr
    Evolutionism in the Pulpit – Anonymous
    Decadence of Darwinism – Henry H. Beach

    Wikipedia has links to online sources….

  28. The Fundamentals were not so much concerned about evolution, and they were not Young-Earthers. In the early 20th century, YEC was mostly a matter of concern for the Seventh Day Adventists. The Scofield Refernce Bible, for example, was premillenial dispensationalist but presented the “gap theory” to explain away the Old Earth. The Jehovah’s Witnesses had some complicated way of arriving at – as I recall – hundreds of thousands of years. Wiliam Jennings Bryan defended Old Earth Creationism.
    The Fundamentals were worried more about modern philology being applied to the Bible, such as the Documentary Hypothesis.

  29. Michael Fugate

    Did you read “Evolutionism in the Pulpit” – perfected the quote mine in 1910?
    It is something any modern creationist could write.

  30. @Michael Fulgate, do you have a link?

  31. Michael Fugate

    You can get it here

    From Beach, The Decadence of Darwinism:
    It is false that man is derived from a brute and a brute from a vegetable. One of the forces of human life makes for a recognition of God and a consciousness of sin against Him. This is not unfolded from arthropod apes, for it is not in them. Brutes are distinguished from plants by self-consciousness, and this was not developed from plants, for it is not in them.

    It is the “goo to you” argument.

  32. @Michael Fulgate, I think that gave the wrong volume, but this link goes straight to it: http://www.godrules.net/library/torrey/NEWtorrey_d8.htm

    I now have a problem: a google search on one key phrase. “The so-called proanthropos, who should exhibit this link, has not been found.” gives me the link to godrules, above; but is there a link to the quotation that’s being mangled here? Or was it made up out of whole cloth?

  33. Michael Fugate

    anthropoid – damn spellcheck!

  34. Addendum: our friend Glenn Branch, at https://ncse.com/blog/2014/03/dr-etheridge-fossilologist-part-1-0015459 , refers back to the shadowy etheridge and to otghers in the 1905 pamplet, “Collapse of evolution”, details at https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=j687AQAAMAAJ&dq=luther+townsend+collapse+evolution&redir_esc=y&hl=en by one Luther Tracy townsend, who also cites Agassiz and others who may well have been reputable opponents of evolution at that time.

    Being lazy, I am just hoping that someone can give me the earliest possible chapter and verse on a dishonestly mined quote, by which I mean a quotation that is either mangled or taken out of context to make it appear that the author is hostile to evolution, or an old Earth, when that is not the case.

    I don’t mean the oldest quotation to be mangled – we have plenty of mangled quotations from Darwin – but the oldest mangler

  35. Michael Fugate

    Here is a copy of Townsend’s “Creation or Evolution” from 1896

    His quote of George Romanes on page 115 is taken out of context. Romanes is referring to a comment by someone else.

  36. @Paul Braterman
    There is such a long traditon of quote-mining the Bible on every subject, that it may be difficult to point to an earliest example relating to a subject of interest to us. The age of the Earth, for example, became a point of contention in the 18th century or earlier.

  37. @PaulB: that link to godrules.net is hilarious – there’s even an equivalnt for the Dissent from Darwin list! It seems appropriate to refer to Ecclesiastes 1. The chapter seems to be tailor made for creacrappers.

  38. @FrankB
    Ecclesiastes 1 is full of traps for selective science deniers:
    …the earth abideth for ever [eternity of the world]
    the sun … hastest to the place where he rose [geocentrism & maybe flat earth?]
    the thing which hath been, it is that which shall be … [no extinctions]
    … there is no new thing under the sun [uniformity]

    And then there is 7:10 which I am fond of citing for those who talk about the good old days
    Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not enquire wisely concerning this.

  39. Ashley Haworth-roberts

    I’m not expecting any new peer-reviewed science in this book.

  40. Derek Freyberg

    @Ashley Haworth-roberts:
    You could omit the “new peer-reviewed” from your comment and it would be equally likely, I think.

  41. I wonder if David Mental will reiterate his laughable error about a direct bone-to-bone connection between the forelimb and the axial skeleton is required for a quadruped to be able to walk on land…

  42. Christine Janis

    I’m just shrugging my shoulders about Menton’s anatomical knowledge.

  43. Christine and I were discussing shrugging shoulders very recently. Question for everyone: A chicken can’t shrug. Why not? and what does that tell you?

  44. Evolutionists work hard to convince others that their evolutionary worldview is built on rock-solid foundations — that it’s the foundation for biology, and, without it, modern science wouldn’t be possible. But this is merely a distraction from the fact that their house is only made of glass — and that glass is cracking.

    Evidence would be nice. Unfortunately for the Hamster, he hasn’t got any.

    He goes on:

    There is not one example of technology that has been developed that requires belief in evolution!

    Even if this were true, technology isn’t science. And to reject evolution is to reject so much of modern science as to essentially render it useless. This is particularly true of young-earth creationism, which requires its believers to tie nuclear physics, astronomy, geology and biology into bow knots to explain how the universe can be mere thousands of years old when all the physical evidence seems to argue for billions instead. And of course, forget paleontology, which becomes essentially a forbidden subject.

    What about old-earth creationism? Well, there’s the awkward fact that if the universe and the earth are accepted as genuinely old the fossil record starts looking awfully Darwinian. Not to mention, of course, that it puts a literal interpretation of the Bible out of the question, which is why YEC’ers see such people as heretics.

  45. @PaulB asks a pressing question: “A chicken can’t shrug. Why not? and what does that tell you?”
    That IDiots should bring this up as evidence for a Grand Old Designer, of course!

    @EricL: they of course should forget archeology and historical research of languages as well. But hey – they love science!



    “The theory is that the members of each linguistic group have descended from one language, a common ancestor.”
    (bold font by me)

  46. Christine Janis

    “The theory is that the members of each linguistic group have descended from one language, a common ancestor.”

    Sorry, but that’s just the Tower of Babel, according to creationists. Of course, it doesn’t explain why there is a nested hierarchical pattern of interrelationships of languages. Nor how somebody born to Latin parents ended up speaking Italian.

  47. YECs should read the Bible. I suggest that they read that boring chapter just before the story of Babel, Genesis 10. There they will read
    verse 5 the descendents of Jepheth were “divided in their lands,; every one after his tongue”
    verse 15 “These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues”
    verse 31 “These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues”
    It may be more taxing to actually read the Bible, rather than visit a made-up theme park. How long will they take to stand in line? I bet that they could read the whole story of the Flood in that time.