Hambo Explains Species and ‘Kinds’

This one is very informative. It’s from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.

Hambo’s post is at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry. The title is Possible New Killer Whale Species Discovered. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

In 1955, more than a dozen strange-looking killer whales were stranded on a beach in New Zealand. Called “type D” killer whales, they were virtually unknown in the wild to science, except in a few photographs and fisherman stories, from that time on. But, as National Geographic reports [Mysterious new orca species likely identified], scientists have now observed a pod of these whales for the first time.

What does that have to do with creationism? You’ll soon find out. Hambo says:

Scientists headed for the dangerous waters off the tip of South America where these whales reportedly patrol the seas. After waiting for a week, a pod of whales finally approached the anchored research vessel. Scientists were able to confirm that these whales look different from other killer whales. They have “a more rounded head, a pointier and narrower dorsal fin, and a very small white eye patch.” Scientists were also able to obtain a small sample of the whales’ skin and blubber.

Very nice. Now what? Hambo tells us:

This study tells us nothing about the supposed evolution of type D or any other killer whales. [Hee hee! “Supposed evolution.”] That would require showing how brand-new information was added to the genome to create a killer whale from an entirely different creature. [Ooooooooooooh! Information!] Of course, that hasn’t been observed. Type D killer whales simply show variation within a kind and possible speciation. The information (genetic diversity) for smaller eye patches and narrower dorsal fins was already there — it simply became prominent in this population.

In other words, the scientists wasted their time because they didn’t see anything that would impress Hambo. Hey, in case you’re wondering about that “information” stuff, see Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information. Hambo continues:

Killer whales are considered one species, but it’s quite possible they will soon be divided into a variety of species (including four near Antarctica alone), one of which would be this new population. Scientists often struggle with species designations, partly because they don’t have a proper understanding of kinds.

No one understands these things like Hambo! He explains:

You see, in an evolutionary worldview, hybrids between species should be a rarity. [Huh?] But that’s not what we observe. Hybrids between species abound, but they’re always within the same created kind. (Usually the level of “Family” in our modern classification scheme.) When we start with what God’s Word teaches — that organisms are created to reproduce according to their kinds — the “species problem” makes sense because species is a manmade term to try and classify creatures, but organisms were originally created according to “kinds,” not species.

Got that? “Species” is a term used by ignorant, Hell-bound Darwinists. Creationists speak of “kinds.” And now we come to the end:

We continually see the species list increasing as variety within a kind is determined to be speciation. This variety highlights the incredible creativity of our Creator who ensured organisms could adapt and thrive in an ever-changing world.

Your assignment, dear reader, after you’ve digested all of that, is to tell us what you learned from Hambo today.

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

30 responses to “Hambo Explains Species and ‘Kinds’

  1. Wot I lerned in Bible schuul today. By A. Pratt:

    Nobody ever told me fish had fingas, but there is, cuz you can eat them, they come frozen in boxes. Teachur said Isnt God nice to pruvide us with his creativ bounty. Thats not all! There are all fish kinds, but not whales, they are fish that are really mammals, otherwize they could not get big enough to swallow Jonah. Whales eat sea things, but not other whales, except killer whales which eat other things in the sea. Maybe other whales when they are really hungry.

    Teachur said fish and whales is really different kinds, like diffferent families, I said why not just call them families then, but familes is not in the Bible, but kinds is. Oh well, thats just the way God makes things I guess.

    The end

  2. What I learned today. This would be a good biology lecture at certain prominent bible colleges (that shall remain nameless in the service of good taste and legal concerns). However, the Ham,( sour Virginia ham that he is and you can look up that term to learn just how horribly wrong a sour Virginia ham is. Tragedy. Beware especially of Virginia hams purchased in New Orleans uptown delis. On Tchoupitoulas Street.) and…..where was I, oh yeah, the Ham chooses to not lower himself to being a lowly biology “professor” at bible college x,y,z. His devotion is extraordinary.
    And thats what I learned today. Sour Virginia ham. Creationist gibberish.
    Ok. And how to use the all caps key.

  3. whole. Purchased whole. Sad.

  4. Charles Deetz ;)

    What I lurned twoday: G-d creted kindz, not speecees. But da wide variety of speecees showd G-d’s creadivity. Gdblss.

  5. Michael Fugate

    When did God list “kinds”?
    I can find nine:
    Grass, herb yielding seed, fruit tree, swimming creatures, whales, fowl, cattle, creeping creatures, human

    An odd list.

  6. Ross Cameron

    Noah (consulting list): Stop da boat–drop the sails, cease rowing, switch off the engine!
    Crew: Whatda?
    Noah: We gotta go back to Australia
    Crew: Whatfer?
    Noah: We forgot to unload the kangaroo and koala kinds
    Crew:Duh.

  7. Dave Luckett

    Ham thinks that the fact that every species is constantly experiencing change of allele over generational time is a bug in the theory of evolution. Of course, it’s a feature.

    I wonder if this is a facet of an entire mindset, a failure of perception? Rigid authoritarians – and Ham’s one, if anybody is – perceive the world as static, unchanging. Where faced with undeniable change, they call it degenerative, but generally deny it where they can. I wonder how much that tendency explains their visceral rejection of the theory of evolution?

    I mean, Ham has a web presence, so he doesn’t reject quantum mechanics, with its counter-intuitive insights. He uses electronic devices, so he accepts particle physics. I don’t think he’s a flat-earther or a geocentrist, although those positions would be a closer fit to scripture than the alternatives. He even argues from the second law of thermodynamics occasionally – with utter and catastrophic misunderstanding of it – but still he seems to accept it. It’s evolution that he cannot abide. Could that be because it is actually predicated on change, and Ham’s whole mindset and worldview is a hysterical rejection of change?

  8. @Michael Fugate
    Where does the Bible use the word “kind” (Hebrew min) in reference to humans?
    ISTM that Genesis 1 rather pointedly breaks the patten of living things being created “according to their kind” (whatever that means). Is there someplace else?

  9. “You see, in an evolutionary worldview, hybrids between species should be a rarity.”
    BWAHAHAHAHA! Ol’Hambo has invented a sophisticated version of the dog giving birth to a cat!
    Of course we still don’t know what “kind” exactly means, but really, did any regular here expect otherwise?!

  10. If those orcas have an eye patch, they must be pirates. I just learned there are vicious underwater pirates!

  11. No sales pitch at the end? Oh right, tune into “Answers”, and that’s where you’ll get the sales pitch.

    Grifters, one and all.

  12. I just learned that Ham agrees with Darwin that the distinction between “species” and “variety” is blurred, and partly an artefact of how we choose to classify things.

  13. Michael Fugate

    Tom – it is clear to me that humans are a considered kind even if not explicitly called one given the narrative. Not to mention that “according to its kind” is a throwaway phrase to provide a rhythm to text so that it is easy to say and follow. Like call and response. There is no indication of process nor even a half-decent folk taxonomy. Don’t you get the feeling that creationism is a bit like MS Windows and elaboration sitting on out-dated inappropriate MSDOS foundation? Or maybe a Boeing 737 Max?

  14. @Michael Fugate
    It is not clear to me what “according to its kind” means. I know that I am not in agreement with most people, that “kind” means something like species. But there is no clear indication that there is a concept of species before the beginnings of modern science. Yes, I accept that it may well be a “throwaway phrase”.
    There is no indicaton IMHO that “kind” is a classification term, anything like a taxon in even a folk or informal taxonomy. For example, that an individual belongs to one and only one kind; that kind X can’t cange to kind Y over the course of time or corcumstances (like the way that a “clean” animal can change into an :unclean” animal when something happens to it); If individual X is of the same kind as individual Y, and Y with Z, does that mean that X is of the same kind of Z?; etc.
    I disagree with you that huans are considered as a “kind” in the Bible. Obviously, humans are a lot like one another; they can mate with one another and produce offsping; etc., but that does not tell us anyting about being of the same kind. I’d guess that an ancient Hebrew would be insulted to be considered as a kind.

  15. I think it’s pretty clear the original authors simply intended “kind” == “breeding pairs”. That was the whole point, to repopulate the planet. And it simply underscores the ignorance of the sheer numbers that would require, or the problem of genetic diversity needed within a species. There would have been no concept of an uber “kind” that would then diversify into similar species, That is an invention of the apologists to try and salvage the story when a broader scientific understanding of our planet starts closing in on them.

    It’s starting to get a lot like debating the appearance of Klingons in TOS vs TNG Star Trek….. 😉

  16. Michael Fugate

    I would agree humans are not a “kind” because kind as inserted in Genesis is meaningless today.

  17. @Michael Fugate
    OK.

  18. @Michael Fugate
    “You just wait until your father gets home, then you’ll find out whether the Bible is meaningless. I suppose the teachers at that school have been feeding these lies to you. I’ve got a good mind to call Harvard and ask for my money back”.

  19. Hambo: “Called ‘type D’ killer whales, they were virtually unknown in the wild to science, except in a few photographs and fisherman stories, from that time on.”

    Wait — what?!?

    “fisherman stories”?

    “unknown in the wild to science”?

    “virtually unknown . . . from that time on”?

    Wow.

  20. Techreseller

    What did I learn from Hambo today? The exact same thing I learn every time I read anything by ol’ Hambo. Absolutely nothing of any value to me.

  21. ashley haworth-roberts

    I have learnt (or rather re-learnt) that Ken Ham is a bigot engaged in a war against biological reality.

  22. Ashley Haworth-roberts

    https://answersingenesis.org/aquatic-animals/possible-new-killer-whale-species-discovered/
    flagging this:
    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2019/03/new-killer-whale-species-discovered/?
    ”At the bottom of the world, in some of the roughest seas, live mysterious killer whales that look very different from other orcas. Now, for the first time, scientists have located and studied these animals in the wild.”
    ”They will soon study the orca’s DNA, which will establish once and for all whether or not it’s a new species.”
    ”Killer whales are still officially considered to be one species, Orcinus orca, but some of the various types are quite likely to be distinct and deserving of their own scientific name, says John Ford, a researcher with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the University of British Columbia. But it requires a formal scientific process, which includes extensive measurements, DNA analysis, and the like.”

    So what did Ken Ham have to say about this pod of killer whales?
    ”This study tells us nothing about the supposed evolution of type D or any other killer whales. That would require showing how brand-new information was added to the genome to create a killer whale from an entirely different creature. Of course, that hasn’t been observed.
    Type D killer whales simply show variation within a kind and possible speciation. The information (genetic diversity) for smaller eye patches and narrower dorsal fins was already there—it simply became prominent in this population.

    Killer whales are considered one species, but it’s quite possible they will soon be divided into a variety of species (including four near Antarctica alone), one of which would be this new population. Scientists often struggle with species designations, partly because they don’t have a proper understanding of kinds.

    You see, in an evolutionary worldview, hybrids between species should be a rarity. But that’s not what we observe. Hybrids between species abound, but they’re always within the same created kind. (Usually the level of “Family” in our modern classification scheme.) When we start with what God’s Word teaches—that organisms are created to reproduce according to their kinds—the “species problem” makes sense because species is a manmade term to try and classify creatures, but organisms were originally created according to “kinds,” not species.

    We continually see the species list increasing as variety within a kind is determined to be speciation. This variety highlights the incredible creativity of our Creator who ensured organisms could adapt and thrive in an ever-changing world.”

    No science there and nothing that is actually taught in the Bible either. Just some recent man-made apologetics concocted to try and make Genesis ‘explain’ what scientists have observed and learnt about speciation whilst attempting to refute the international scientific consensus in favour of ‘young earth’ creationism.

    Ham omitted (accidentally I assume) to urge readers to purchase a copy of ‘Replacing Darwin: the New Origin of Species’ by his AiG colleague Nathaniel Jeanson. And he omitted (deliberately I assume) to mention DNA.

    When the Bible mentions (when translated into English) ‘kinds’ it is NOT – as claimed by AiG and others – teaching anything about biological classifications. This ‘created kind’ concept is a manmade classification by young earth creationists who are sworn enemies of biological science whenever it contradicts their inflexible beliefs about the past.

  23. Ashley Haworth-roberts

    Sorry for duplication – but this page was REFUSING my post (or so it appeared a few minutes ago).

  24. Ashley Haworth-roberts

    Michael Fugate and others

    That ‘kinds’ is not some scientific classification as Ham would have it. It just means types, varieties or what we would often term genera or even species today. With birds examples include finches, tits, raptors, eagles etc.

  25. @Ashley Haworth-roberts
    I find no indication that the Biblical Hebrew “min” (translated as “kind”) is a classsification word, not even a vague one. It is used in a very restricted context. I would go so far as to say that it is a noun without any designation. (Nouns need not designate a “person, place or thing”. Think of phrases like “a matter of fact”, “changes are in store”, “out of kilter”. I think that “according to his kind” can be another example.) Maybe “kind” is just a idiomatic word in Biblical Hebrew, something that does not have an English equivalent.

  26. @AHW: “Sorry for duplication”
    Next time you might try to renew the page before you start duplicating comments. Ol’Hambo’s god – obviously a lesser one – tries to bug WordPress. But in the end the Great Hand from Above always prevails. The GHfA is very generous and forgiving and hence is usually satisfied with just one click to confirm your faith.

  27. Michael Fugate

    Ashley, I don’t think it even means that – the divisions are more ecological than phylogenetic – land, sea and air or how or what they eat. Even in that sense – “after their kind” seems to mean something more related to their niche than to common descent. What’s important is the organism’s function not its origin. This 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia entry makes a distinction between clean animals in Genesis used for sacrifice versus those in Deuteronomy/Leviticus used for food.
    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4408-clean-and-unclean-animals

  28. @Michael Fugate
    “clean” versus “unclean” is an example of a classification which is not taxoomic, because “clean” can change to “unclean” because of what hapens to the animal – if it is killed by a predator, for example. Also, as far as I know, plants or minerals are not classified as “unclean”. Is blood called “unclean”?

  29. Ashley Haworth-roberts

    Michael
    It’s probably also to do with how birds etc look eg their size, shape and colour(s) – the latter can of course vary within individual species (including sexual dimorphism as well as variations such as albinism or melanism). (Also Adam wasn’t told how to name the animals, he had to use his initiative – apparently.)

  30. Michael Fugate

    True, surely there were non-palatable or poisonous plants that were to be avoided, but there is little natural history in the book. Why was Cain’s plant-based sacrifice rejected and Abel’s animal-based accepted? I would need to read up on sacrifices, but were they only animal after that? I realize their god loved burning flesh, but for reason that aren’t ever made clear. Then again, why wasn’t Jesus burned if it were to satisfy the same god for all eternity? I guess the key is not to think very much…