Ken Ham Defends Science — Or Does He?

We don’t know what to make of this one, so we’ll just present it and then maybe you’ll be able to make sense of it. 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.

We found it at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his the creationist ministry, and it’s titled Twitter Bans Spanish Politician for Saying “A Man Cannot Get Pregnant”. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

If I told you even five years ago that Twitter would be temporarily suspending a politician’s account for stating biological facts, you probably wouldn’t have believed me. [We always believe you, Hambo!] The acceptance of radical gender ideology — which is both anti-science and anti-truth (anti-biblical) — has taken place at breakneck speed. And we now live in a world where a simple statement of biological fact — that men cannot, in fact, get pregnant as they have “no uterus or eggs” — is now considered [Link omitted!] “hate speech.”

We need a little background, and Hambo gives it to us:

Reportedly, Francisco José Contreras, who serves as a deputy to Spain’s Vox Party, received a twelve-hour suspension from Twitter [How horrible!] because, in response to an article on a “man” becoming pregnant [Those scare quotes are significant!], he tweeted “a man cannot get pregnant” because men have “no uterus or eggs.” It’s a simple biological fact, but in our anti-science day, it’s considered hate speech.

Evolution is also a “simple biological fact,” but Hambo doesn’t want to hear any of that stuff. Anyway, he tells us:

As our Western cultures drift further from a biblical worldview [Gasp!] and instead continue to build their thinking on the sand of man’s opinions, we’ll continue to see utter foolishness accepted as fact — and anything resembling biblical truth vilified and ignored. As I have been saying for many years now, we must be prepared to stand, no matter what comes.

He’s right, of course. For a long time now, Hambo has been telling us about biblical truth like Noah’s ark, but everyone laughs at him. Of course, there are other biblical truths that he won’t defend — see The Earth Is Flat! Anyway, this pregnancy thing is where he draws the line. Or perhaps it’s more accurate to say he draws the line at calling the pregnant person a “man.” Anyway, he continues:

God’s Word is clear: he created us male and female and gave women, not men, the ability and privilege of bearing children, although that is difficult and painful now in a sin-cursed and broken world (Genesis 3:16).

We hope you understand what’s going on here, because now we’ve arrived at the end of Hambo’s post. Here it is:

So, Francisco José Contreras is right because of the truth of God’s Word and science — a man cannot get pregnant, no matter how vehemently our culture argues otherwise. God’s Word, not man’s foolishness as exhibited by Twitter, will endure.

Your Curmudgeon has no experience with Twitter. We generally ignore such websites. Also, there’s obviously a lot more to this story, because it makes no sense as presented by Hambo. What do you make of it, dear reader?

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

7 responses to “Ken Ham Defends Science — Or Does He?

  1. Theodore J Lawry

    One of the great services of the internet is it allows one to find documented examples of people being even more foolish than you. Or at least they are foolish in ways that you would never adopt so you are “smarter” than them in that respect. I imagine that Ham finds that a great comfort.

  2. I don’t know what’s hard to understand. Ken Ham is anti-LGBTQ, so he’s defending a transphobic politician who had to face consequences for his speech.

  3. Charles Deetz ;)

    Really, his beef is with words, not science. He’s rather whip up emotions than get in the nitty gritty of the facts. What a showman.

  4. Dave Luckett

    No, he does not defend science. He advocates a complete misunderstanding of the terms of the debate. Anyone who has ever been within shouting distance of reality knows that sex, as expressed by anatomy and/or chromosomes, and self-perceived gender, are not in a one-to-one correspondence in all human beings. What other factors are operating, to what extent, and exactly what causes and effects they have are objects of ongoing research – that’s the science – but to investigate those questions is to investigate the single most complex entity in the known Universe: the human mind. It’s not surprising that the answers are tentative, nebulous and maddeningly diffuse. Nevertheless, they are the only answers available.

    Gender dysphoria is real. Is it a clinical condition? Is it biochemical in origin? Is there an anatomical explanation – some condition of the brain? I don’t know. I don’t think anybody does. I do know that it’s very easy for me, who was never in any doubt that my gender matches my sex and my anatomy, to make light of the tribulations of others. I don’t think Ham has the slightest idea of what those may be – which is to say I think he is utterly bereft of empathy.

    Be that as it may, science investigates reality. And the reality is that sex and gender are not two words for the same thing. Human beings and human society must deal with that fact, and cannot deal with it by denying it, as Ham does.

    Further, the first, the most basic response to the fact should be compassion and respect. I cannot believe that trans people endure what they endure out of malice or mischief, or because they think it’s fashionable – it’s too onerous and painful for that. For me, the first principle is Hippocrates’ own: do no harm. The second is a good conservative maxim: mind your own business; live and let live.

    In the face of those ideas, my personal quibbles are of little moment. For example, I find it odd, to say the least, that gender reassignment therapy is being given to adolescents too young to give informed consent to sex. But that’s another issue altogether.

  5. @Dave Luckett
    Thank you for that.
    By the way, I have often heard it said (Dave L does not say this) that the Hippocratic Oath has it as its first principle, “Do no harm”. The Latin phrase has it as “Primum non nocere”, and there is Wikipedia article about that. I will not attempt to summarize the long and complicated article, just call attention to it for those who might care.

  6. Charley Horse X

    Another attempt by the imported Ham to attract the low hanging fruit….Retaliban voters. This was political driven comments by Ham….not the first nor the will it be the last.

  7. I’ve dug deeper. The censured tweet was from a Vox politician. Vox is a hard right party in Spain. I wonder what the back-story is, and what was *really* going on here. But I don’t wonder hard enough to dig down and find out the full story; just hard enough to refrain from joining in the shock! horror! reaction to it