Hambo Links Science with the LGBT Agenda

This one is strange — really strange. It was found at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. It’s titled Academic Editorial: Research Contradicting the LGBT Agenda Shouldn’t be Printed, and it was written by ol’ Hambo himself. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

The journal Nature Human Behavior recently published an editorial titled, “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans.” This editorial, announcing a new policy regarding the journal’s editorial standards, puts into print what many scientific journals have already been doing — they may now reject or retract any research that is deemed “sexist, misogynistic, and/or anti-LGBTQ+” in an effort to encourage researchers “to promote equality in their academic research.” In other words, it doesn’t matter what the actual research says — what matters is advancing and preserving an ideology!

We almost never blog about LGBT issues, but Hambo has somehow tied that up with evolution today. He says:

The editorial states, “Although academic freedom is fundamental, it is not unbounded.” Of course, by “unbounded” the editor means it can’t go against the status quo when it comes to so-called gender and sexuality studies (among other woke ideologies). Why? Because,

[He quotes the editorial:] Harms can also arise indirectly, as a result of the publication of a research project or a piece of scholarly communication — for instance, stigmatization of a vulnerable human group or potential use of the results of research for unintended purposes.

Hambo doesn’t like their policy, and he tells us:

So, the research doesn’t really matter to them at all! What matters is the “harm” (and who even defines harm?) that might come about if certain conclusions aren’t what LGBTQ activists would want!

Enraged, he continues:

You might say this is shocking and then ask: what happened to academic freedom? But this is nothing new — for many (many!) years now, secular academic journals have basically outlawed articles that would support creation [BWAHAHAHAHAHA!] or even question the basic tenets of the evolutionary belief system or millions of years. (We even had to fight for our highly qualified researcher, Dr. Andrew Snelling, to be allowed to collect samples to do his Grand Canyon research! It’s research which dramatically confirmed the history in God’s Word!).

Yeah, and last year we wrote about Snelling’s research — see Published: The Grand Canyon Formed Rapidly. Okay, let’s read on:

It’s a reminder that no one is neutral in their thinking. As Scripture teaches, “It is written: ‘None is righteous, no, not one’” (Romans 3:10). Science isn’t some neutral endeavor only concerned about the cold, hard facts and the truth. It’s ultimately driven by a worldview — and, sadly, it’s by and large an anti-God worldview that blinds them to the truth.

He’s talking about you, dear reader. And now, having exposed the alliance between science and the LGB-etc community, Hambo ends with this:

We’re constantly told to “follow the science” or “believe the science.” But “science” is flawed, makes mistakes, and, for many scientists, interpreted through the wrong lens (man’s ideas, including evolution and millions of years), and even outright suppressed because of an agenda! [Gasp!] Instead of blindly trusting in man’s fallible research methods, we should trust God’s unchanging, unshakable Word.

Okay, dear reader, now you have a big decision to make. Are you going to get your science from those hideously corrupt journals, or from ol’ Hambo?

Copyright © 2022. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

15 responses to “Hambo Links Science with the LGBT Agenda

  1. Here’s the actual editorial: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01443-2 I would be interested in what people make of it after careful reading

  2. Charles Deetz ;)

    Wow, Paul, that was exhausting to try to read. Obviously for writers and reviewers. The last paragraph comes down pretty specifically about LGBTQ+, I can see how someone like Hambo sees that as overprotective, if not ‘blocking’ his worldview. In action, I can hope that Hambo’s past and current writings even on his blog, while negative about certain lifestyles, is still respectful of people groups. With these rules, that negativity now comes under scrutiny, at least by Nature’s rules. Am I on the right path?

    I recently had a brief encounter with a trans-woman. I still replay my encounter in regards to my interaction with her, what I said to my wife, what I thought to myself. I acknowledged to myself and my wife that I thought she was trans, but only to acknowledge my *deduction*, and not my *judgement*. To her I wouldn’t say a thing, of course. But I desperately would love to sit down and get to know her.

  3. @Prof. Braterman, thank you for that link. I followed Ham’s, and found what I expected to find, a scabrous far right-wing evangelical hit piece. Ham’s world is a hall of mirrors in an echo chamber where he hears and sees only himself.

    Your link contained another, https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/editorial-policies/ethics-and-biosecurity, which is the actual guidelines to publishing in this scientific journal. It makes interesting reading.

    In the first paragraph after the contents, we have an instruction to “avoid preventable harms that may arise in the course of research or its communication.” Further, in the fourth paragraph, “harm” is defined specifically to include “stigmatization of a vulnerable human group”.

    (I shall not go on an excursion into the limiting effect of the adjective “vulnerable” here. I am aware that in various theories, some groups don’t qualify as “vulnerable”, and therefore don’t qualify for this protection. Meh.)

    “Stigmatization”, however, is an interesting word to use, and I am not quite certain of what the editors mean by it. I take it to mean “to mark unfavorably”. But this journal is concerned explicitly and specifically with human behavior, and this includes human group behavior. To measure and report any difference in behavior between or among any two or more groups is necessarily to differentiate between them. Any such difference is almost certainly to the advantage or disadvantage of one or another. A disadvantage is undeniably an unfavorable mark, which stigmatizes one group or another. Therefore, this guideline would appear to prohibit reporting any such finding, on any evidence.

    My immediate reaction was visceral rejection of any such stricture. Wait a moment, though. The guidelines go on to say: “in cases of substantial risk of harm that outweighs any potential benefits, (editors) may decline publication (or correct, retract, remove or otherwise amend already published content)”.

    That would appear to ameliorate matters. Harm there may be, but it must outweigh the benefits to trigger rejection. That sounds more reasonable at first glance. But read all the words.

    A paper would be rejected if the risk of harm caused by stigmatization outweighed the potential benefits. That is, neither the harm nor the benefits need be quantifiable, demonstrable or actual. The risk of the one and the potential of the other is sufficient. This risk is required to be “substantial”, true, but I would submit that so subjective a qualification is no qualification at all. Any stateable risk could be deemed “substantial”. There is no requirement that the risked outcome ever occur; no need to measure its incidence or effects.

    Thus, it appears to me that the editors of this journal are asserting a power that they should not have: that of denial of publication on their own judgement of the possibility that one group or another might be unfavorably marked by findings, however factual, however evidential, about their behavioral characteristics. To grant such a power seems to me to be extremely unsafe. The principle might be, and probably is, entirely altruistic. But as in many such cases, the actual results of entrusting such power to fallible human beings will be lamentable.

  4. @Dave Luckett, I absolutely agree. I would not choose to publish in this Journal, and will think the less of anyone who does.

    As for AiG’s sheer gall in protesting about restriction of speech…

  5. Well, it’s a behavioural health journal, so I can appreciate them maybe overcorrecting when it comes to sensitivity on LGBT+ matters. It’s a field that’s literally correcting from endorsing genocide on LGBT folks within the last 80 years, and mass sterilization within the last 50.

  6. The ancient aphorism, “two wrongs don’t make a right” applies, I think.

  7. “Science isn’t some neutral endeavor only concerned about the cold, hard facts and the truth. It’s ultimately driven by a worldview — and, sadly, it’s by and large an anti-God worldview that blinds them to the truth.”

    Ah yes that’s why they aren’t creationists. *eyeroll* Lame excuse #5937562.

  8. “It’s research which dramatically confirmed the history in God’s Word!”

    Well whoopty-doo-daw! How have you not run out of exclamation points yet Ken!

  9. I still don’t get why they don’t pray for Satan to be saved. Even if they pull out lame excuse #7649881 that the prophesies say Satan gets defeated not saved, if Satan were saved for a year and then goes back to not saved, that’s a years worth of souls saved from not burning in hell.

  10. Found this cool argle bargle on quora dot com:

    “No. Unlike us humans who dwell on Earth and have not contemplated God, Lucifer and his angels did be in the presence of God. Also, angels are purely spiritual, and their intellect is not limited by worldly limitations. Therefore, unlike us when we sin and become distant from God, that we do it due to temptation and not fully knowing God, Lucifer and his angels really knew what they were doing. Once they did it, there was no chance to redeem themselves. Just as there is no repentance for man when we die, there was no repentance for Lucifer and his angels after their fall, in which they became Satan and his demons.”

    Hey, that’s as good of a lame excuse as any to not feel stupid and pray for Satan to be saved.

  11. I’ve seen several varying reasons why people shouldn’t pray for Satan, which suggests they first start out with the conclusion you can’t pray for Satan and then proceed to make the lame excuses from there. My theory that they simply feel stupid praying for Satan due to how stupid the theology is seems plausible.

  12. How about praying for the Archangel Michael (may he be victorious)? For the Apostle Peter? For Adam?

  13. Pray for Adam to retroactively not sin. I like it. Why don’t any Christians pray for that one.

  14. Two things palpably missing from the Bible to its literary detriment. Time travel and laser beams.

  15. Pray for the Pope, that he may become Christian?
    Pray for the Senior Cardinals: Pujols, Molina. Wainwright.