Hambo Says Darwinists Are Cruel

We knew some creationist would make a blog post out of this, and it turns out to be 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: “It’s Called Darwinism”: Cruel Note Is the Logical Consequence of the Evolutionary Worldview. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

How different are the logical consequences of the biblical worldview and the evolutionary worldview! A recent sign discovered by the parents of a young baby battling two rare disorders highlights the brutality of the underlying philosophy of evolutionary thought. [Brutality?] These parents had posted signs advertising a fundraiser they are hosting to raise money for their son’s medical expenses and further treatment. In response, they found spray-painted signs that read, “Stop asking for money. Let the baby die. It’s called Darwinism. Happy Holidays.”

Groan! We saw some headlines about that, immediately attributed it to a genuinely depraved mind, and moved on to other things. But ol’ Hambo has fixated on the story. He says:

In the Darwinian philosophy, it’s survival of the fittest — the strong survive to reproduce, the weak die off. In the logic of this worldview, there is no room for compassion [What?], caring for others, and helping the weak survive.

Nonsense! Darwin never avoided medical treatment — for himself or his family. The only people we ever heard of who behave like that are those whose religion teaches them that faith will do the healing. They often make the news for withholding medical treatment from their children, and they’re rightly prosecuted for their crimes. But we never heard of any biologist who objected to medical treatment. The lunatic who put up the sign that has captivated ol’ Hambo certainly doesn’t represent the meaning of evolution, but Hambo is thrilled, because that freak’s depravity fits his worldview. He tells us:

The author of the cruel sign is sadly consistent with his Darwinian beliefs, as were so many before him who took Darwin’s ideas to their logical conclusions. For example, here in the United States, thousands of individuals were subjected to forced sterilization by Darwinist-inspired medical staff, so the “unfit” would no longer reproduce children who might have disabilities or have other “undesirable” qualities. It’s horrifying — and it’s the logic of Darwin. Indeed, it’s evolution that these eugenicists appealed to!

Creationists are always saying things like that. We’ve rebutted it before — see, e.g.: Racism, Eugenics, and Darwin. Hambo doesn’t care. He continues:

Certainly, not every evolutionist thinks this way — thankfully, most don’t. But they are being inconsistent in not following through with the logical consequences of their belief system (something we’re thankful for, which is a result of the conscience God has given each person). Evolutionists who are not consistent with their beliefs and who rightly condemn such thinking are actually borrowing from a biblical worldview to make that argument.

Amazing. Hambo takes credit for any benevolent thoughts you may ever have. Let’s read on:

How very different the biblical worldview is! When we start with God’s Word, we know this precious baby was made in the very image of God (Genesis 1:27), fearfully and wonderfully formed by his Creator (Psalm 139:14). Yet he (like all of us) lives in a broken, sin-cursed world. His body suffers from the effects of the curse. [A curse imposed by Yahweh.] And, until Jesus returns and establishes a new heaven and new earth, we fight against the consequences of the curse, care for the sick and disabled, and show them love and compassion as Christ did throughout his earthly ministry. People with disabilities or disorders have as much right to life and our best care as anyone else simply because they are made in the very image of their Creator.

Does that seem contradictory to you? It does to us. Anyway, our next excerpt is the end of Hambo’s post, and it offers something better than medical care:

But the ultimate hope for this baby isn’t in doctors, testing, or the best medical care (although we are thankful for those things, and truly support the parents as they do all they can in using current medical science to help this child!) — it’s in Jesus Christ. Jesus paid the penalty for all our sins. He offers the free gift of eternal life to all. That’s the message this child needs to hear as he grows, and that’s the message his parents, and the individual who left this cruel sign, needs to hear! Ultimate hope is in Jesus Christ!

And so, cruel Darwinists, isn’t it time you reconsidered the evil inherent in your evolutionist beliefs?

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

15 responses to “Hambo Says Darwinists Are Cruel

  1. Richard Jones

    Universal health care would be of more use to this child than Jesus.

  2. chris schilling

    SC notes of the sign writer: “… a genuinely depraved mind..”

    Maybe so, but it also smells suspiciously of someone more anti-“Darwinism” than perhaps they’re letting on, and disguising their intentions with the veil of “irony.”

    No-one asks to be born into this world. Conversely, no-one who has severe physical deformities or conditions should be fobbed off with Ham’s glib platitudes about a “sin-cursed world”, and needing the Jesus myth as a balm and salvation.

    Would Ham or anyone else be willing to trade places with those condemned to endure unimaginable pain or mental trauma of the sort that remains unresponsive to the best palliative care and treatment? Then they shouldn’t be so quick to consign others to that fate.

    What’s worse: euthanasia — in those invidious cases, where at least informed adults get to make decisions about their lives, or their offspring — or exploiting human suffering to further Christian platitudes and anti-evolution rhetoric?

  3. “How different are the logical consequences of the biblical worldview and the evolutionary worldview! ”
    Yes. According to the first genocide is objectively a good thing as long as YHWH orders it and the other has nothing to say about this topic.

    “spray-painted signs that read ….”
    Given the usage of the word “Darwinism” the possibility can’t be excluded that some sick-minded creacrapper is responsible.

    Not at all. It’s a fine example of that important fundagelical law:

    1. something bad – blame Homo Sapiens (especially evilution);
    2. something good – praise YHWH.

    “Does that seem contradictory to you?”
    No. Something that doesn’t makes self sense can’t be self-contradictory.

    “we are thankful for those things”
    But this does, because many of those things result from our understanding of evilution …..


    Of course we already know Ol’Hambo’s reaction: “That’s not evilution! That’s variation within a kind!”

  4. Oops, something went wrong – Ol’Hambo’s lesser god is resentful and got me. Here I go again: (falling on my knees): Oh Great Hand from Above, as always I’ve not been nearly pious enough lately, misleading myself that I could follow the right path on my own. So of course I went astray, as I always do. Will you forgive me my sins, despite my incurable sinful nature, and firmly lead me back to a safe haven again, now I’m so terribly lost?
    I only intended to use italics for “especially” – but the lesson that good intentions lead to textual wilderness is nearly impossible to learn.

    [Voice from above]: There is little hope for you, but your typo has been repaired.

  5. The ol Hambo shtick. Attack logic and claim that indefensible fundamentalism makes sense in a scientific manner. Yawn.

  6. Ol’ Hambo: “But the ultimate hope for this baby isn’t in doctors, testing, or the best medical care . . . — it’s in Jesus Christ. Jesus paid the penalty for all our sins. He offers the free gift of eternal life to all.”

    So speed the child on with a good “Godspeed!”

    Pull the plug. End the suffering.

  7. I second chris schilling. This is no “Darwinist”. For a start, nobody who accepts the evidence for the theory of evolution would ever use that term of themselves. No, this is an ideas troll, one who utters, in public, revolting perversions of an idea in order to discredit it, but as if advocating them. This one is particularly unsubtle – the successful ones are far more plausible. As SC says, it’s a depraved mind, and probably unhinged. Trolls are demented, generally. Anybody whose social activities include extreme efforts to get attention by causing others to loathe them needs psychiatric treatment. But they’re everywhere, and the internet has lent them enormous scope and leverage.

    The only interesting aspect of this transaction is that Ham has fallen for it, unsubtle as it is, hook, line and sinker. Or…

    Again I find myself pondering the imponderable: Is Ham really so socially unaware that he actually believes that this deranged clown speaks for anyone, including for the clown himself? Has Ham never met an ideas troll on his own boards? One that, say, vociferously advocates killing all gays, as commanded by God? One would think he never had, from his gladsome response. But such credulity, in one as shrewd as Ham, is in itself difficult to believe.

    Or is Ham only posing as one who believes that this toxic garbage is an expression of “Darwinism”? Is he doing that because he knows that most of his catchment audience will believe it? That is, he knows they really are that dim.

    Which is to say that Ham is advocating views he doesn’t actually hold, to get the attention of others. But advocating views you don’t actually hold for the sake of getting attention is the essence of trolling. Which would make Ham a troll in principle, but operating the other way up. A reverse-troll?

    As always when taking a stroll down the hall of mirrors that is the mind of Ken Ham, I find myself looking for the egress.

  8. @Dave Luckett “Has Ham never met an ideas troll on his own boards?” Are you suggesting that Hambo allows comments on any of his posts or web sites? Because that’s not my experience. So I’d say, no, he hasn’t met someone like that on his boards because like the Discotute, they don’t allow comments.

  9. @DaveL asks an intriguing question: “Is Ham really so socially unaware ….”
    No. He only cares about his creacrap propaganda; the rest doesn’t matter. So I’d rather call him socially deranged.

  10. Universal health care would be a good solution.
    ‘darwinism’ definitely says creationist did this.
    But this does illustrate the rePUKEian health plan..get sick-Die! or go bankrupt.
    I hope the people with the sick kid were successful in their efforts!
    For all others get out and vote the rePUKEians out of office and get things done to HELP PEOPLE not the filthy rich crooks!

  11. Laurette McGovern

    I have been around biologists all my professional life (in fact, once upon a time I taught Biology) and I have never, EVER heard a real biologist use the term “Darwinism.” It is simply “evolution.” Anything else and you realize you are dealing with a fraud.

  12. I do “love” how Hambo’s solution to the child’s problem is to forego medical treatment, the same as the “Darwinist,” but it’s cuddly and comfy because you pray for them instead. That’s … special.

    And, yeah, Darwin would be so angry with those who think that his theory means humans ought to be neglected, given how much he discusses our nature as a social species.

  13. H.K. Fauskanger

    “It’s called Darwinism. Happy Holidays.”
    As others have already pointed out, “Darwinism” is a word used by creationists far more often than people who accept the notion of evolution, and the conclusion “Happy Holidays” seems to be a subtle additional stab at this horrible “liberal” replacement for the PROPER phrase “merry Christmas” that gives due prominence to Christ as the “reason for the season.”

    So what we are looking at is a heartless troll pretending to be a “liberal Darwinist” (or the fundamentalist caricature thereof), complete with biological nihilism and a “poltiically correct” greeting.

  14. Karl Goldsmith

    Ken didn’t seem to understand what he was reading.

  15. Almost without exception, Ham’s kind of Christian rejects state-paid medical care for sick and dying children. His kind of Christian thinks that if bake sales don’t cover the cost of chemo, then it’s time to pray over the child and let him die. There’s no sanctity of life for the children of the poor.