Hambo’s Creation Science Research Projects

One of the questions we all wonder about is: What are the creation scientists working on? We especially wonder about those who work for Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.

Well, dear reader, today we have the answer. It’s at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), Hambo’s creationist ministry. The great man himself has written What is Happening in AiG’s Research Department? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

What do blood cells in a fossilized insect, Noah’s sons, dinosaur soft tissue, the Grand Canyon, and stars all have in common? [We give up.] They are all topics of AiG research projects. Our research department, with our several PhD scientists, is involved with all of them to one degree or another.

That’s exciting news. Then he says:

Our scientists are currently waiting for funding to commence their research or to continue projects. [Good luck with that!] Let me fill you in on some of the fascinating details.

To me, research can be both boring and exciting at the same time! Boring — because sometimes it seems to take millions of years for our researchers to meticulously carry out their investigations! Exciting — because after years of research, our speakers and writers (and you, our supporter) can use the results to show people how observational science confirms the Bible’s account in Genesis and devastates evolutionary ideas.

That makes it all worth while. Hambo tells us:

Take the research of Dr. Gabriela Haynes. She’s our new PhD paleontologist who came to work in AiG’s research department from Brazil. She is chomping at the bit to conduct more detailed research on a very exciting project and build on some preliminary work she has already conducted. Here is Dr. Haynes’s proposal:

Soft tissue in fossils was always something interesting for me as a paleontologist. … I did some research by myself, and all the results I had were pointing to soft tissue material and blood cells. Unfortunately, I didn’t have the support from my secular colleagues to use the laboratory and run more tests. So new funds would allow me to support this research that has important implications for the biblical account of Creation and the Genesis flood.

A worthy project! Hambo continues:

Then there’s our Harvard-trained PhD scientist, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson. We recently published his monumental book, Replacing Darwin [link omitted]. His ground-breaking book details his genetics research to clearly show that speciation, adaptation, and natural selection, when properly understood, devastate Darwinian evolution. [At last!]

Dr. Jeanson has also been conducting research into human genetics. He’s looking into whether there’s evidence from human populations to confirm the biblical account of history beginning about 6,000 years ago. Dr. Jeanson’s research also has important things to say about the event of the Flood (i.e., all humans today are descendants of Noah’s sons) and the account of the Tower of Babel. His research to date is blowing the evolutionary time scale out the window. But we need to do more detailed research before his results can be published.

There’s a lot more about Jeanson’s work, but let’s skip that and read on:

PhD astronomer, Dr. Danny Faulkner, is involved in all sorts of such fascinating research. Here is his proposal for one particular project:

I have been working and publishing in the field of eclipsing binary stars for four decades. Two other creation astronomers who are close associates of mine also have studied eclipsing binary stars for years. We often have wondered why all three of us ended up in this field, and we may now know the answer to that question. Due to magnetic interactions of close binary stars, their orbital periods change. We are seeing evidence that these systems are changing far faster than previously thought.

These orbital changes place constraints upon the maximum possible ages of such systems, and it appears that their maximum ages must be far younger than the billions of years typically thought. [Gasp!] This is very difficult to resolve with the evolutionary paradigm, but it is quite consistent with recent creation. Therefore, it is important that we continue to study this very interesting possibility.

Wowie — he’s going to prove that the universe is only 6,000 years old! Here’s more from Hambo:

You may have been wondering what has been happening with the research of Dr. Andrew Snelling, who is involved in researching the massive folding of sedimentary strata in the Grand Canyon. This is the project that the Grand Canyon National Park and secular scientists tried to stop. But a legal challenge was lodged on our behalf by the religious freedom group, Alliance Defending Freedom. Because of clear and obvious violations of our First Amendment rights (discrimination, because we were Christians) by the federal government, Grand Canyon officials were forced to settle, and all the necessary specimens were collected.

Yeah, we’ve all been wondering. Skipping a few paragraphs, we’re told:

What this research shows is that those layers [sedimentary layers in the walls of the Grand Canyon] could not be millions of years old — they couldn’t have been bent millions of years after they were laid down. The evolutionary story doesn’t fit at all. [Amazing!] Dr. Snelling has found a lot of intriguing evidence he will reveal when he publishes the results. But he wants to cross every t and dot every i first — secularists will place his research under intense scrutiny. Funds were successfully raised for Dr. Snelling’s initial research, but there’s much more that he could accomplish.

Hambo then wraps it up with a multi-paragraph request for contributions, beginning like this:

Now, it only took you a few minutes to read this letter. But the research I’ve outlined for you can take many months — or even a few years — to complete. And yet, such research is vital for AiG. We need to ensure that AiG maintains the highest integrity in all we write and say. [Hee hee!] We also need to show people (including the skeptics) that we have conducted careful research — and the results cannot be ignored.

Okay, that’s enough. Now you know that great creation science is being done by Hambo’s staff. So click over there and read the entire post. Then send them all your money. It’s a worthy cause!

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

21 responses to “Hambo’s Creation Science Research Projects

  1. The god of Hambo and his minions is such a trickster!! Ninety nine percent of scientists accept the research results that are diametric to Hambo’s claque. I’d love to be on the study section that is reviewing the AIG proposals.

  2. What do tortillas, the number 2, armadillos and the color blue have in common?

    THE FALL!@@@@@@@@@@!!!!!!!@!@

  3. Mark Germano

    I hope they haven’t given up on figuring out the Ark Kinds. I’ve been waiting for five years.

  4. Charles Deetz ;)

    And I thought they used a manure cart and shovel to make their ‘science’. silly me.

  5. “Research can be both boring and exciting at the same time!”
    It must be boring if your conclusions are already predetermined.

    Chances are that Gabriela with her dinosaur soft tissues will come to the same conclusion as Mary Schweitzer, who has been working on these things for a quarter of a century. If she is honest. Or she can go the same way as Andrew Snelling who happily writes proper science papers or pseudoscience rubbish, whatever direction the wind blows.

  6. “What are the creation scientists working on?”
    Combing articles written by actual scientists for quotes to mine.

    “Soft tissue in fossils was always …..”
    Gaby did research on soft tissues and lo and behold!

    “all the results I had were pointing to soft tissue material”
    Hey, I’m going to do research on tables. What are the chances that my results will point to tables?

    “discrimination, because we were Christians”
    No, Ol’Hambo, discrimination, because you are intellectually dishonest pseudo-scientists with your predetermined conclusions..

  7. “We need to ensure that AiG maintains the highest integrity in all we write and say.”

    That word (integrity) does not mean what they think it means.

    “But we need to do more detailed research before his results can be published.”

    I am aquiver with anticipation but which refereed science journals will all of this bleeding edge “creation science”[sic] be published in? I wouldn’t want to accidentally miss it when it finally get printed in the “scientifical” press!

  8. Guys, let’s face it, we are whupped. How can we possibly win our secret battle to corrupt youth and achieve Total World Domination–as our Master Charles Darwin bid us to do–when we are up against the mighty forces of Hambo’s

    “research department, with our several PhD scientists”

    ‘Several! They’ve got a team of ‘several’!

    We are doomed…

  9. chris schilling

    “… speciation, adaptation, and natural selection, when properly understood, devastate Darwinian evolution.

    BWAHAHAHAHA!!! I love it when the creationist steps onto the rake hidden in the grass and it smacks him straight in the face! That’s Champagne Comedy!

  10. Since Ham’s gawd can’t get him money, there is another way. Since the hardest work Ham does is pull BS our is arse, he should reduce his unearned income to something reasonable like $20K/yr. Do so for the other free loaders and they have lots of money to throw away on doing more nothing.

  11. “What are our research scientists up to?”

    “They are standing by the phones live, right now, just waiting for your call! Every donation will get a free ‘were you there?’ poster of Ken Ham! CALL NOW”

    So…..800K visitors x (min) $40/ea into that joke of an Ark…. where is all the money going if not used to “fund their research” ? And what do they REALLY do while sitting around “Waiting for funding” ?????????

  12. Mark Germano

    “And what do they REALLY do while sitting around “Waiting for funding” ?”

    Waiting for fundies, of course.

  13. Karl Goldsmith

    That is certainly a lot of pretend research.

  14. Karl Goldsmith

    “So…..800K visitors x (min) $40/ea into that joke of an Ark” That was increased after first year to $48 for adults while reducing child price. Well the elderly are not taking children.

  15. Back when I was a creationist, the “impossibility” of folding sedimentary rocks was one of my favourite things to bring up in debate. Until I debated a doctoral student in geology, who absolutely schooled me on it. I remained a creationist for some time afterward, but it sure didn’t help.

  16. Kosh wants to know what those creation scientists are doing, besides waiting for funding.
    They are combing through the scientific literature to look for bits which they can take out of context, distort if necessary and use to fill their creation journals and DVDs. It’s called cherry picking.

    One thing you can be sure: they don’t waste their time doing real research!

  17. Jim Roberts – our dear Dr Andrew Snelling, a professional geologist, has written an article on the impossibility of folding sedimentary rocks https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/rock-layers.pdf
    You can rest assured that he understands rock folding once he puts on his ‘secular’ geologist hat.

  18. And, of course, when the supernatural or omnipotence is involved, it is obvious that there would be folding (or is it merely the appearance of folding, one of the tricks of omphalos) of strata. There has to be a Biblical proof-text about that, right?

    The Designer of Strata (hommage a Edward Lear)
    How or why or what
    When or where or not
    Does designer of that
    Fold those strat –
    A?

  19. @JimR: “Back when I was a creationist.”
    I say that the best way to tackle creationism is a manyfold strategy: from harsh mockery like mine to nice, polite, serious schooling by that doctoral geologist. What do you think?

  20. @hans435, Yeah, that’s quite true – a lot of people are … performatively creationist. They don’t think about it, and effectively live and act like it doesn’t matter, but they have to say it out loud or risk opprobrium.

    @FrankB, I honestly don’t remember a single thing any of the harsh mockers said, and I don’t think they made any significant impact on me, but I’m really just an anecdote. Sociological and psychological research have indicated that mockery and negative treatment is only occasionally helpful, but it can have a positive effect.

  21. @Jim Roberts
    How about the not flat Earth? Don;’t most people don’t thnk about it, just accept that the Earth isn’t flat because it’s a matter of being laughed at. If there are enough people who don’t laugh at it, it is then acceptable to believe that the Earth is flat.
    And I won’t mention politics.