Hambo Discusses the Squirrel Kind

This is a good example of why we admire Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. Take a look at what he just posted at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: Squirrels Produce Squirrels (Just Some Have Black Fur). Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

A recent study [Scientists Figure Out Why There Are Black Squirrels All Over the United States] reports that 1% of squirrels in North America have black fur, instead of gray or red. This study found that the black fur is caused by a variant form of the same gene in both gray squirrels and fox (red) squirrels. They believe the most likely explanation is both squirrel species have this same variation because of interbreeding. Is this surprising?

Why is ol’ Hambo writing about this? Be patient, dear reader. All will be revealed. He says:

Well, both squirrel species belong to the same created kind, the squirrel kind (the family Sciuridae, which also includes chipmunks, marmots, and prairie dogs).

Ooooooooooooh! The squirrel kind! Then he tells us:

We know from the book of Genesis that organisms reproduce according to their kinds. There is great variation within a kind (because of the genetic variation already present in the DNA of each kind, put there by God from the very beginning), but one kind of organism will never turn into another kind.

That’s good to know. Hey — get this:

Our research [Creation science research!] shows clearly that in most instances, the word “kind” translated from the Hebrew word min corresponds to the “Family” level of classification.”

Fascinating! Hambo continues:

In the article, the author talks about supposed squirrel evolution [“Supposed” evolution!] and how these species share a common ancestor. And, indeed, they do — they share a common ancestor in the original created squirrel kind. Those representatives of the squirrel kind were given genetic diversity by God (including, perhaps, this gene variation, although it may also be the result of a mutation).

Wow — it might have been a mutation. Let’s read on:

Two of their descendants survived the global flood on the ark [the Flood!], and the squirrel species (as well as other members of this particular kind) that we see running and climbing around today highlight the diversity within the squirrel kind. But this has nothing to do with evolution in the molecules-to-man sense!

Got that? It has nothing to do with evolution! Another excerpt:

Squirrels don’t share a common ancestor with all other life on earth. No one has ever observed one kind changing into another kind. [He’s right!] And, of course, that’s because God created everything to reproduce according to its kind!

Powerful stuff, huh? And now — too soon! — we come to the end:

So, we don’t expect one kind to change into another kind, and we never observe that happening. What we see in observational science always confirms God’s Word.

That was wonderful. Hooray for Hambo!

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

29 responses to “Hambo Discusses the Squirrel Kind

  1. In the article, the author talks about supposed squirrel evolution [“Supposed” evolution!] and how these species share a common ancestor. And, indeed, they do — they share a common ancestor in the original created squirrel kind. Those representatives of the squirrel kind were given genetic diversity by God (including, perhaps, this gene variation, although it may also be the result of a mutation).

    Funny, how the word “kind” always seems to mean whatever taxonomic level creationists want at the moment — “family” for squirrels but “species” for humans, no matter how obviously deliberately inconsistent that makes it.

  2. Ken Ham has an inexhaustible supply of material. He can go through the entire animal kingdom and find examples. They are all convincing enough for the droolers.

  3. Unfortunately, this is entirely without biblical foundation. Somebody just nade it up.
    There is no mention in the Bible of squirrels, etc. There is no mention of microevolution within a kind, there is no mention of a barrier between kinds, there is no distinction between kinds and species, there is no equivalence can between kinds and families. On and on, it is a modern imagination at work. Has anybody before the 20th century found anything like this in the Bible?
    It leaves unanswered where the taxonomic rank of species came from. It doesn’t work as biology and it doesn’t work as Bible exposition.
    BTW, the Bible never uses the Hebrew word “min” in reference to humans. So this doesn’t even work to tell us that we are of a different kind from others of the our taxonomic family of Hominids.
    You’d think that as long as they’re making up stuff, that there would be a point to it.

  4. Michael Fugate

    And you would think they would adhere to a flat, stationary earth in the center of the universe.

  5. “Those representatives of the squirrel kind were given genetic diversity by God…”
    Well, that may be so. But then supposedly god took it all away again when he reduced them to a single breading pair on the ark.
    Past genetic diversity means diddly squat when your species, (sorry “kind”), goes through a bottle-neck.

  6. Yeah, I forgot to mention that the Bible
    doesn’t mention genetic diversity. It doesn’t mention genetics, of course.
    As you point out, there’s no point to diversity when it is all wiped out in the Ark bottleneck. It’s all pointless manufactured blather. I suppose that it is supposed to look superficially impressive, and I guess that’s all that matters.

  7. @TomS astutely notices: “It doesn’t work as …..”
    Given the creationists’ fondness of teleology we should ask ourselves: is it meant to work that way?. The answer of course is no. And of course there is a point, you know this as well as everyone here (including MichaelF): creacrappers ain’t no kin of no [bleep]in’ monkey.

  8. chris schilling

    Ken’s upset by the very thought of molecules-to-man evolution.

    Post-Flood incest among squirrels, on the other hand, he has no problem with.

  9. Molecules to man
    Objection to that is the epitome of the typical creationist fallacies of composition/reduction; the signature borrowing of 18th century arguments for preformationism (against reproduction).
    The creationists are unwilling or unable to produce appropriate arguments against evolution. (They have no positive alternative position.) Of all of the failures, “molecules to man” has to be most inane, as if the bodies of living things do not appear from and grow from molecules. (If there are supernatural souls, biology has nothing too say about them, positive or negative.)

  10. Squirrels. Rats with good PR.

  11. Wow! He’s right! We never saw one KIND changed to another KIND so that must not happen. I never saw my dad have sex with my mom so I never happened! No one has seen gawd so it is not real either! Great logic there old Hambone!!!

  12. Laurettte McGovern

    What did the “original” pair look like? A chipmunk? A flying squirrel? A groundhog? A gray squirrel? Some combination? And, since there are some 280 recognized Sciurid species existing today, that means a new species was produced, on average, every 14 years since the Flood. Is that still happening? If not, when did it stop?

  13. Richard Staller

    Good to see Hambo playing to his strength: snake oil for rubes.

  14. @Laurette McGovern
    Any resonse to your questions can only be without any basis. Nobody who “was there” had anything to say about it. The Bible does not say how many were created on day six. It does not say how or when the creatures were divided into species. Is a division into species an act of creation? Or is it a natural act, like evolution? Or both? Nobody knows.
    It is a free choice of the creationists as to what they decide to say about the subject. At any point, when they run out of rhetoric, they can call a stop to it. Or just continue to blather on, if they feel like it.
    If there is a difference of opinion between creationists, there is no way of deciding who is wrong, or if there is anybody who is right.

  15. chris schilling

    It’s funny — or just sick and creepy — to see creationists reduced, perforce, to post hoc rationalisations for inbreeding/incest, simply in order to:
    a) circumvent the logic and inevitability of evolution vis a vis viable population genetics
    b) justify their faith in discredited myths
    c) absolve their god of recourse to a practice that — in any context other than Biblical one — is considered taboo, and an outrage against standard norms of human morality.

    Too much of Ham, and you’re left with egg on your face.

  16. Incidentally, creationists are aware of genetic bottlenecks – their argument is that the pairs pulled onto the Ark had DNA sufficient that they could swiftly re-produce the pre-flood diversity within a couple of generations. Basically, they don’t have a problem with macroevolution, they just insist that it happened in a very, very short period of time.

  17. @Jim Roberts
    Biologists refer to evolution which does not include speciation as “micro”evolution. Creationists say that evolution within a “kind” is “micro”evolution. Somebody decided that if Noah only took representatives of taxonomic families on the Ark, that there would be enough room on the Ark. That, and the evidence from bacteriology and agriculture, is the reason for accepting “micro”evolution. Obviously, the Bible has nothing to say about evolution. I assume that the concept of a taxonomic family dates from about the time of Linnaeus, the 18th century.

  18. Michael Fugate

    It is pretty comic how much creationists have ceded to evolutionary biology. In the early days, they were opposed to natural selection and speciation. The DI on its more apologetic days, drifts back into the early rigidity. The opposition to human evolution stems from thinking if we are animals we will act like them and if natural selection is true we must practice eugenics. It is an incredibly deterministic worldview from those who worship free will. Not to mention a form of the genetic fallacy. The DI is still resorting to not enough time for human evolution while Ham is claiming time is no longer a factor. Then again, all is fair in apologetics.

  19. While discussing the “shooting of ground squirrels” (we have an infestation) at a family reunion over the weekend, my niece commented:

    “It’s OK to shoot squirrels , cause they don’t have SOULS”.

    Well, OK then.

  20. @TomS, given that bats are included with birds in the Old Testament, taxonomy certainly isn’t found in the Bible.

  21. @Michael Fugate
    If we are designed to be most like chimps and other apes, them in order to obey the design, shouldn’t we act accrding to the design?
    If it’s just a matter of common descent – well, just because my great uncle was a horse thief, that doesn’t mean that I shuld be one too.

  22. Karl Goldsmith

    Squirrel kind is something that Kent Hovind came up with in a debate.

  23. For those of you who live in Northeast Ohio, the black squirrels are descendants of those that had escaped from Kent State Unv., some time ago.

  24. Theodore Lawry

    Wikipedia says “the squirrel family includes tree squirrels, ground squirrels, chipmunks, marmots (including woodchucks), flying squirrels, and prairie dogs amongst other rodents.”

    And Ham says there is “great variation within a kind (because of the genetic variation already present in the DNA of each kind, put there by God from the very beginning), ”

    Now wait a minute, if squirrels and woodchucks have the same genes, they should be the same creatures, which they are not. Creationists love to ridicule evolution by asking where are the croco-ducks? Well, where are the squirr-chucks? Care to tell us that, Mr. Ham?

    There must be some genetic sorting mechanism which turns genes off and on which explains the differences in the various species which all belong to the “squirrel kind,” but what are they? Tell us which creationist paper describes these mechanisms, will you?

    Since this genetic sorting happened after the Ark, the mechanisms must have arisen quite quickly. Please explain how.

    It seems that creationism has come dangerously close to making a prediction, namely that DNA studies will find 1) genetic sorting mechanisms which explain the differences between the species, so as to prevent squirr-chucks, and 2) the mutations which created these mechanisms, in only a few thousand years. If those predictions are not borne out, then creationism would be wrong. Worse yet, Ken Ham would be wrong!

    On the other hand, if they are correct, then Ham’s theory would be confirmed! AIG has several members with degrees in biology, so which creationist researchers are looking into this, and how much funding have you allocated to the search, Mr Ham? The DI has raked in over $60 million over the years, more than enough to make a good start. You aren’t going to let them scoop you, are you Ham? Just think how wonderful it would be if creationists actually made a discovery, showing up all those godless scientists by beating them at their own game. So what are your researcher’s plans and when can we expect to hear of their results?

  25. Michael Fugate

    One wonders if all the genetic variation in the Sciuridae were present in one population, then what would the phenotype of the ur-squirrel be? CRISPR anyone?

  26. @TheoL tries to corner creacrap: “It seems that creationism has come dangerously close to making a prediction”.
    No problem. If this doesn’t happen it’s because athiest evilutionists look at the empirical data through a secular lens. At the other hand their creationist scientists are working on it. Just wait! Until the end of times, the second coming or whatever.
    You can’t beat creacrap.

  27. @Theodore Lawry
    Exactly!
    After the Ark landed, the pair of “squirrel-kind” gave rise to the various species by micro-evolution. Were the founding pair of one or two species? How did the differentiation into species come about? The Bible doesn’t give us any guidence about that, because it doesn’t tell us anything about micro-evolution, species, squirrels, or chipmunks. The fossil record, according to YEC, was laid down during the Flood, so that can’t tell us anything about post-Flood micro-evolution.
    Is one permitted to ask, “How do you know?”

  28. By looking at the evidence through Ol’Hambo’s personal Biblical lens, of course.

  29. @Jim Roberts
    Good point.
    The Bible isn’t interested in Linnaean, modern taxonomy.