Ol’ Hambo’s Darwin Day Challenge

First it was the Discovery Institute — see Discoveroids Have Big News for Darwin Day. Now it’s 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: A “Darwin Day” Challenge for Creationists and Evolutionists. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

February 12, the birthday of Charles Darwin, is recognized by many evolutionists as “Darwin Day.” Well, that’s right around the corner, and I have a challenge for both creationists and evolutionists on this “Darwin Day.” [Oh goodie — a challenge!] For evolutionists — here’s your challenge. Download (or order a physical copy) of the powerful book, Replacing Darwin, by a scientist with a PhD from Harvard University, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson.

We’re ignoring the links in that paragraph because we discussed Jeanson and his book a couple of weeks ago — see Hambo Presents The Latest Creation Research. Now Hambo says:

You may be wondering why someone with a PhD from such a prestigious school as Harvard is a creationist! Well, he has very good reasons — and that’s why I am challenging you to read his book. I think you will be quite surprised by what you read. It’s probably not what you’re expecting!

No, dear reader, you won’t be surprised. It’s what you’d expect from a home-schooled youth — see The Mind of Nathaniel Jeanson. Hambo tells us:

You see, in my experience (and Dr. Jeanson says the same thing), most evolutionists don’t actually know what modern creationists believe. [They believe that science leads to the Lake of Fire.] Instead, they have a rather archaic view of creation and don’t understand that creationists actually make testable scientific predictions based on models! [BWAHAHAHAHAHA!] That’s the gold standard of science, and creationists do that! Replacing Darwin lays out one of those predictions and also shows some serious problems with evolutionary ideas, particularly in the field of genetics.

In our earlier post about Jeanson’s book we quoted Hambo making the same claim about creationism’s scientific predictions, but — like now — we were never told what those predictions are. Anyway, he continues:

But don’t just take my word for it [No problem!] — check out the evidence for yourself. I challenge you, in honor of Darwin’s birthday, to challenge yourself to read Replacing Darwin and consider its claims.

You wanna read the book, dear reader? Go right ahead. Then tell us what you’ve learned. Meanwhile, let’s read on:

For creationists — here’s your challenge. You still have time to order copies of Replacing Darwin from our online store and have them arrive in time for “Darwin Day.” [But you gotta hurry!] I challenge you to order a few copies to hand out to evolutionists you may know. [Groan!] Please give them the same challenge I gave my evolutionary readers. Then, pray that the truth of God’s Word will impact their hearts and that the Holy Spirit will give them eyes to see.

If Hambo has evidence that evolution is wrong and creation is right, he won’t need Yahweh to intervene. The evidence alone will be sufficient. And now we come to the end:

You can find Replacing Darwin at AnswersBookstore.com. [Link omitted.] It is a revealing look at natural selection, genetics, and Darwinian evolution.

Okay, dear reader, now let’s get serious. Do you have the courage to accept Hambo’s Darwin Day challenge? Then go for it!

Copyright © 2020. 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

22 responses to “Ol’ Hambo’s Darwin Day Challenge

  1. Strange that the challenge to creationists did not include reading “Your inner fish” or “Evolution’s slam dunk”

  2. Amazon (UK) says: From Master Books, “Replacing Darwin” offers a revolutionary approach to the study of origins with a potential impact as big as Darwin’s.

    Master Books will, for a mere $86.65, supply a home schooling course with which you can “Explore the geologic marvels of Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Mount St. Helens, Dinosaur National Monument, and more in this fascinating Jr High science course as your student discovers how science and geology confirm the Bible! In Awesome Science: Historical Geology, students in grades 7 – 8 will experience a visually stunning exploration of geologic features around the world as they discover the authority and historical evidence of the Bible’s truth through science!”

  3. I’ll read it if Hambo sends me a free copy.

  4. “… most evolutionists don’t actually know what modern creationists believe. …” P’Tak with what you believe…show the evidence!!!

  5. Michael Fugate

    Which creation? Which god or gods are behind it? If the biblical god, then is it young earth, flat earth, old earth, etc.?

  6. Laurette McGovern

    In a word: No. I have better (and more pleasant) ways to waste my time

  7. The whole “challenge” boils down to a book promotion.
    Talking about handing out creationist books – Bruce Malone with his Search For The Truth Ministry is currently crusading the Fiji islands for three weeks, visiting every single school and brainwashing the kids there.

  8. Michael Fugate

    Isn’t the reason Jeanson is a creationist that he was fed this stuff as a child and never outgrew it?
    My challenge for Ham is to study and embrace biblical cosmology
    not the bastardized version of Genesis he is pushing.

  9. “Download (or order a physical copy) of the powerful book, Replacing Darwin”
    So I visited the page, clicked on the link our dear SC so wisely omitted – no, Ol’Hambo, I can think of much better ways to waste my 20 bucks.

    “Then tell us what you’ve learned.”
    That Ol’Hambo wants to rob us from our hard earned money.

    “I challenge you to order a few copies to hand out to evolutionists you may know.”
    Then just give the good example, Ol’Hambo. Send some copies to our dear SC and undoubtedly he will ask here who’s interested.

    “Do you have the courage to accept Hambo’s Darwin Day challenge?”
    As I wrote above the courage is not the problem.

  10. Karl Goldsmith

    He went to Harvard so that his creationism had a pretend legitimacy, then he went to ICR, amd then AiG. He has no actual published reasearch since Harvard. “Replacing Darwin lays out one of those predictions” Creation predictions are always things already known.

    Just watch this instead.

  11. If they want to convert evolutionists, let them describe their alternative in a free medium.

  12. @TomS, to be fair, they do. You can go to the AiG site and do a search on a term, and while the latest edition of Answers is available as a book to purchase, it is being serialised, chapter after chapter freely accessible, on the site.

    When I have visited that site, and I’m intrigued by the bizarre combination of slabs of genuine science or history that sound as if essentially plagiarised from what they would call “conventional” sources, combined with molehills-to-mountains treatment of any anomaly or even element of surprise, leading to the sudden invocation of their own interpretation of the Bible.

    Whether any of that really adds up to an “alternative” is a different matter, but it certainly claims to

  13. “Instead, they have a rather archaic view of creation and don’t understand that creationists actually make testable scientific predictions based on models! […] Then, pray that the truth of God’s Word will impact their hearts and that the Holy Spirit will give them eyes to see.”

    Why Ham needs a miracle? He just have to test rigorously his predictions, describe the whole experiments and results in a paper, and accept the critics.

    Oh! I can see why he prefers the miracle.

  14. Ham lets creationists off lightly.

    Rather than read Jeanson’s book, the should read EvoGrad’s chapter-by-chapter dismantling of ‘Replacing Darwin’.

  15. @Paul Braterman
    Seriously. I took a look at that site. I saw a lot of descriptions of biology, yes. But I didn’t see a description of what makes that happen.
    Yes, God can make XYZ happen. But why that, when he can just as well make ABC?

  16. Michael Fugate

    Weaponizing doubt to make a buck

  17. @TomS, the site shows an extraordinary mixture of exposition of descriptive material, garbled versions of scientific explanations, objections to those explanations on grounds that are sometimes merely fanciful, sometimes based on the existence of real disagreements or apparent anomalies, and finally an invocation of divine intervention, without any need for an intervening mechanism, as purported explanation. So I agree, it does not meet your test of supplying an alternative explanation of why this, rather than that. And I also agree that the invocation of miracles against a backdrop of supposedly natural cause and effect is incoherent.

    And, of course, facts that don’t fit Genesis, or rather Ham’s half-baked account of Genesis, must be discarded as being part of the wrong worldview. For instance, the discussion of Egyptian chronology, which as conventionally recorded would have had pyramid building underway during the date that Ham assigns to Noah’s flood, states that the pyramids must actually be post-flood, because the stone out of which they were built was a flood deposit, and draws the conclusion that the Egyptians made a mistake in a key date, the foundation of the Old Kingdom. Within Ham’s worldview, what other explanation could there be?

  18. What other “explanation” could there be?

  19. The (non-)problem of course that creacrappers with “alternative explanation” mean something different than we; the same with “science”.

  20. @Christine, an extremely fair-minded review by Anthony Lawson, a systems analyst, whose name was familiar to me from social media discussion of evolution versus creation.

    Lawson asks “I also wonder who the intended audience is for this book.” I think this question shows a misunderstanding. The object of the book is not so much to convince or even attract readers, as to add credibility, in the eyes of those who have not gone into such detail, to the claim that a serious scientific defence of creationism exists. The same can be said of much creationist material

  21. Michael Fugate

    The argument from authority – if not the Bible, then science. Makes no difference what is actually said.