Ken Ham Accuses Science of His Own Crime of Being a Religion Masquerading as Science

Ken HamIf you have been following the abundantly one-sided debate between science and the Creation Museum’s Ken Ham, you might enjoy his latest claim, that evolution is not science at all, but a religion that has “brainwashed” those who “believe it” into thinking it is science.

Right Wing Watch has kindly provided a snippet:

And he’s not happy that some Christians are willing to go along with the idea that a biblical day is not literally a day, that ‘day’ might be a euphemism for many, many, many years:

A lot of these Christian leaders, when they say the word ‘day’ can’t mean an ordinary day because of science, it’s not observational science they’re referring to, it’s man’s historical science. In other words, man’s beliefs about evolution and millions of years.

They’re taking man’s religion of millions of years and saying, ‘That’s why you can’t believe what the Bible says.’ If the word ‘day’ in Genesis 1 means an ordinary day and you say it can’t because of what man is saying, then you’ve just said God’s word is fallible and its man’s word that is infallible. No, it’s the other way around.

What Ham has done here, besides inadvertently describing Creationism (a religion that fools people into thinking it is science by cleverly tacking the word “science” onto it), is make himself sound very…oh, I don’t know any other word for it…stupid.

Yes, I know that it is difficult, but Ham has attained that rare pinnacle of an adult perfecting the childish art of “Oh yeah? Well, your….!” He can’t prove that creationism magically turned into science when he added the word ‘science’ to it, so the best he can do is turn the tables and say his religion is science and that science is…well, religion.

He can’t explain that alchemical process, and it must be alchemy because like creationism, alchemy is a myth. It just is, because it needs to be true for him to even pretend to be in the same playing field as actual scientists. People like Neil deGrasse Tyson, who could put Ham’s brain in his pocket and forget about it was there.

I say “science” above, because even though it is Bill Nye who debated Ham, it is Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s Cosmos reboot that has the smug creationist pulling his hair out in true biblical fashion. This is not the first time we have heard about “blind faith in science.” And on his site, Answers in Genesis, Ham takes issue with life beginning with chemicals, saying the origin of life “will remain unresolved for them until they [scientists] acknowledge God’s eyewitness account of the origin of life in the Bible.”

Cogent arguments and reasoned rebuttals you will not find coming from Ham. Instead, he steadfastly sticks to his claim that the Bible is somehow an eyewitness account of creation, which it can’t be. Unless he wants us to believe God himself put stylus to papyrus and jotted it down from notes he made as he created the cosmos and then gave it into Adam’s safekeeping, it cannot be: You see, man was not created until the sixth day. How did Adam know what happened on days 1-5? If the Bible is inerrant, as Ham insists, then it cannot be an eyewitness account of creation.

And if he is claiming God himself wrote it down, how does he explain the…infelicities in the manuscript? Namely, in Genesis alone, two mutually incompatible creation stories. From 1-2.4 we have the standard 7-day model with which we are all familiar. But from 2.4 on we are given an entirely new scenario, one which sees the creation of Adam and Eve (remember, they were already presumably created along with all the other men and women in 1.26, where he enjoined them to “be fruitful and multiply.”

Of course, this turns out to be very bad advice indeed, since this is the sort of nonsense that gets them in trouble in the second story. As Robin Lane Fox observes, the second story “flatly contradicts the first.” In the second story, man precedes vegetation but in the first, vegetation appears at 1.12 while man only arrives at 1.26 – a neat trick.

Remember too that the Garden of Eden exists only in the second story; it is not present in the first, an interesting omission. Obviously, the two stories date from different times, but both before 400 BCE, after which date a third writer combined them into a single account. “Probably,” as Lane Fox concludes, “the two stories had become too well known for either to be excluded.”

And that doesn’t include the story of Noah – of which there are two, also mutually incompatible.

And this is just in Genesis, where Ham expects us to find answers.

We can easily step forward a little and look at the Ten Commandments and ask, WHICH Ten Commandments? Because even the famous 10 Commandments so popular with the Religious Right are not so cut and dried as people seem to think: The 10 Commandments are given twice, once at Exodus 20 and again at Deuteronomy 5. If that isn’t confusing enough, we are also presented with three mutually incompatible sets of laws (Exodus 20-23; Leviticus 11-27; Deuteronomy 12-26).

In any case, as Lane Fox rightly observes, “There are not ten, and they are patently not original commands which were given to Moses by the mountain god of Sinai.” Though they may originally date from around the 10th century BCE, “the versions which we now read have been enlarged and varied and their final form may be as late as c. 550 BC.”

That makes the Earth even younger than Ham claims.

Sadly, the sort of argument we can in response to actual facts can be found here:

Evolution_vs_Creationism

Of course, fossil evidence does not support creationism. While we have a velociraptor locked in battle with protoceratops…

Velociraptor_protoceratops

…the fossil record is shockingly and lamentably bare on the subject of velociraptor versus homo sapiens.

The problem with Ham is that he thinks saying something makes it true. He doesn’t understand the first thing about science and if he did, he would not admit it, because he is a fraud, and frauds don’t make money by being honest.

References:

Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible (NY: Vintage Books, 1991)

Ken Ham photo from The Huffington Post

If you’re ready to read more from the unbossed and unbought Politicus team, sign up for our newsletter here!

44 Replies to “Ken Ham Accuses Science of His Own Crime of Being a Religion Masquerading as Science”

  1. I can handle mixing both creationism and evolution. Because really what is the idea of a day to GOD (should such a being exist) seriously. One day could be a year, a thousand years, a million years. There are still a lot of things unexplained in our Universe, and granted science/evolution is remarkable. Their are a lot of variables that go into life to just say random chance is amazing especially with life. I personally would like to think there is a divine hand in things, but hey if not my life is not going to end anytime soon.

  2. I know some will complain that I’m being an absolutist but I don’t care! God is not even a factor at all. Religion is a joke and only for repressing the truth. Evolution IS a FACT and REALITY and creationism is for STUPID gullible people. There is no debate, creationism is wrong 100%

  3. You’re showing signs of a STUPID gullible atheist considering:
    1) you are not a scientist yet you insult scientists.
    2) evolution is not a fact because if it was, every scientist would have believed it.
    3) the only reason you accept evolution, which BTW you have no first hand experience with, is because it satisfies your atheism.
    4) you conveniently forget that atheism is a religion.
    5) you’ve never questioned evolution when people with Nobel Prizes have.
    6) due to your religion, you’re biased.

  4. “[Ham] doesn’t understand the first thing about science and if he did, he would not admit it, because he is a fraud, and frauds don’t make money by being honest.”

    This is exactly right. Ham knows nothing about science, but he does know how to separate the rubes from their hard-earned money. He’s nothing more than a common conman who just happens to have stumbled onto a particularly lucrative con.

  5. I don’t think we can really no the mysteries of the spiritual world. I think our “Biblical” explanation for life 4,000 years ago was based on what they knew at the time, which wasn’t much, to explain epllepsy, sudden volcanic explosions causing nuclear winters, the melting of the ice shelf 8,000 years ago which caused enormous flooding, hence the Noah story. Droughts causing migrations and wars over resources.

    The point is, if you were to transport someone who lived 6,000 years ago into the present day, they would regard TV, the Internet, music transmitted over wireless, cars, microwaves as witchcraft. This was a catch all for “things we can’t explain”

    What we know about the spirit world is the last frontier. We aren’t meant to know it. Because I believe it’s in another dimension. And we aren’t eve loved enough yet. indigenous North Americans describe the departed as “not dead, just in another room.”

  6. Sweetie, Atheism is NOT a religion. It’s a complete non-belief in any deity. Just as Buddhism is commonly believed to be a religion. It isn’t, it describes a way of living. It is essentially an Atheistic way of life beccause of it’s lack of a God. Buddha was a man who became ‘enlightened’ by his understanding of compassion.

  7. Uhhhh… since neither theist or atheist can provide testable “proof” of their claims, perhaps the humility of acknowledging not knowing leads one to healthy agnosticism? Perhaps it’s just me, but the is-isn’t argument takes us nowhere.

    That said, creationism depends entirely on a literal interpretation of the bible and it all hinges on the arrogance of those who claim to know in spite of the evidence of the opposite.

  8. As an atheist, I don’t feel the need to provide any proof for my position. Theists are the ones making the extraordinary claims. It’s up to them to provide proof, or even a single scintilla of objective evidence, and until they do I feel no compulsion to buy into their claims.

  9. “They’re taking man’s religion of millions of years and saying, ‘That’s why you can’t believe what the Bible says.’ If the word ‘day’ in Genesis 1 means an ordinary day and you say it can’t because of what man is saying, then you’ve just said God’s word is fallible and its man’s word that is infallible. No, it’s the other way around.”
    Ken Ham’s wrong turn was where he completely glosses over the fact that God didn’t write anything. People barely out of the stone age did. So to take the Bible LITERALLY is just being dumb, and not seeing the forest for the trees. If the asswipe would stick to the overall THEME of the Bible, which is be good, see good, do good, as are ALL religious texts…then he’d have a better life and wouldn’t feel the need to constantly bash ‘non–believers’ (aka smart people) over the head with the story of creation.

  10. I’ll bite:
    1) Ham is not a scientist, he is a former High School teacher who likes to play scientist. His total disregard for the scientific method shows this. Also, having a 4 year degree in science does not make you a “scientist” anymore than getting a degree in literature or English would make you an author.

    2)95% of the world’s scientist agree with evolution. So does the Vatican. Creationism literally has slightly more support than the Flat Earth Society. You know, those guys who still think Earth is flat…

    3) Pot meet kettle.

    4) No, by definition it most certainly is not. That’s like saying abstinence is a sexual position.

    5)Conjecture. How do you know the author hasn’t questioned it? And EVERYTHING in science is questioned, that’s the point of science, and also why Creationism isn’t science. Questioning does not equal disapproval of a theory, or approval of the polar opposite of a theory.

    6) Oh the irony….

  11. Well, other than every single thing you said being wrong, including the gullible atheist remark, are you trying to imply that you are not gullible because you only believe in one thing, the bible? You criticize many things that which you do not understand in the slightest. I hope you’re 10 years old, otherwise, you have no excuse.

  12. The world is only 6000 years old!? Man/Women walked with dinosaurs?
    I have watched Cosmos, and one of the really interesting observations was at the Grand Canyon, where there are all these layers basically showing our earths age, one layer at a time. Also, there is something called Carbon Dating, which can pin point the age of a lot of physical stuff. Scary how some of the rocks they have carbon dated have a billion year age on them.
    Hay Ham, how do you explain that?
    I like the Bible, its full of sex, violence, and lots of ideas on how to either kill your neighbor or love your neighbor, but as an historical record, it has more contradictions then Barton and his Jefferson BS.
    Herf did a piece on this blog once about the origins of the Bible and how a lot of people died putting together the New Testament, based on which piece of paper they had, Agnostic or Cannon (I think), would love to see that article again, gives everyone a real good idea on how the Bible really was put together…

  13. Here’s a hint: There is no spirit world. You don’t go to heaven, you don’t go to hell, you die. Just like your pets, just like the plants, just like your ancestors, they all go back to the earth from which they came. Hopefully, you don’t figure it out when your time is up, and waste your life.

  14. Why would you have to prove there is no god, when there is no evidence to support the idea that there is one? There is no way to prove that there is no god, simply because there was no evidence to begin with.

  15. I’d peg the bible at about 50% good. The rest of it is very primitive, violent and sadistic. I’ve read it a few times, purely to “know thy enemy”, which is probably more than most christians.

  16. If you knew anything about science, you’ll know that carbon dating:
    1) does not actually tell you the age.
    2) does not date fossils up to a billion years due to it’s half life.
    3) is not quite accurate.
    4) only works with living things or things that were once alive.

  17. Little Kenny doesn’t know much about science, or empirical evidence, but his knowledge of scripture is a little weak too. It says in Psalm 90, verse 4: “One day is like a thousand years in your [God’s] eyes…”

    The fundamentalist mind is like concrete: all mixed up and permanently set.

  18. Vy, you probably just shouldn’t speak in public.

    First, Yogi didn’t realize that carbon dating wasn’t used. Potassium/Argon dating were likely used, which is now the most common, and is accurate to 5,000,000,000 years, or if that’s not old enough, you can use lead-alpha dating which is good to over 4 trillion years old, if memory serves. That’s older than our earth, maybe not yours, but ours.

    The dating methods are accurate to a known degree, which is usually just a few decades, and accurate enough for any argument with you.

    Yes, it tells you the age, that’s the point. You don’t just push a button and it goes “438,997.2 years old boss!”

    The other methods other than Carbon are used for inorganics.

    Carbon’s nice because you don’t need a big sample size for an accurate measurement.

    Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!

  19. I think he/she does more than you and you are getting tiresome with your idiocy and my patience is getting to the breaking point with your nonsense.

  20. Congrats, you’ve represent your leaders well.
    To use Potassium/Argon, you need to know the amount of Potassium originally in the fossil, there is no way of knowing that.
    Don’t flatter yourself, you can’t taunt me.

  21. That’s where the archaeology comes in. I can plainly see you’re not worth the effort. You obviously have no concern for reason or advancement of knowledge, and prefer to live in the middle ages. You throw bs preconceptions and assumptions at everyone when you’re flat our wrong. You don’t even have an argument, but instead try to belittle and contradict the other person, while offering nothing of substance. Have a nice day.

  22. They are probably being blocked because you are contributing nothing to the conversation, make up your own generalizations against a group of people about a topic that you have no clue about, and are having a ship fit because people are calling you out on it.

  23. This is a typical ploy of the christian right wing called DARVO: Deny Attack, Reverse Victim with Offender. They use it to accuse those pointing out their racist of being racist themselves, folks fighting against sexism of being sexist, etc.

    It comes from the psychological impulse of domestic abusers to falsely counter-accuse their victims of actually being the perpetrators.

  24. That’s so well put! Thanks. It describes the entire GOP/Limbaugh/Rove playbook perfectly. I’m going to copy it and use it. Especially noting the source as sex-abuser psychology. Brilliant. Thanks again.

  25. Vy, first, thanks for providing some humor for this comment thread.

    Second, have you ever seen a poodle? Or a Yorkshire Terrier? Or a fantail goldfish? Those creatures did not occur naturally. They were not on Noah’s ark. They were all “engineered” by breeders over many years of “selective breeding.”

    That means when the daddy goldfish and the mommy goldfish made babies, someone other than them chose them for each other, selecting them for specific traits they wanted to emphasize. Thus, the ugly brown carp became, over hundreds of generations, a beautiful fantail goldfish.

    Now then. The mating selections made for the millions of years that life has been on earth occurred naturally, that is the selection was done by “God.” Natural Selection is the process by which lower life forms evolved all the way up into humans.

    If you like miracles, you couldn’t ask for a better one. Cartoonish Creationism pales in comparison to the truth.

  26. Couldn’t reply directly so. . .
    [b]@porksword:[/b]
    1) there are up to/more than 10000 creationist scientists.
    2) what happened to the 5% including Nobel Prize winning MRI inventor and buckyballs discoverer and a whole lot of Christian scientists after Darwin?
    3) i have no idea what you mean.

  27. 4) typical atheist response. Go to Oxford Dictionary and check the meaning of religion.
    5) if he had, he wouldn’t have used such language, he would have known that so called Homo erectus has been found in so called evolutionary timeline of Homo sapiens using so called “accurate” dating methods which have several inconsistencies. He would have known that the reason there are less open creationists and little peer reviewed papers of creationism is because of bias, discrimination and corruption.
    6) like Raymond Damadian put it, “evolution is science fiction”.

  28. TracyClem: “non-believers (aka smart people)”
    That just shows how ignorant you are. The smartest people believe in God.
    Ben Carson (amazing doctor), Raymond Damadian (MRI Inventor), Isaac Newton (greatest scientist).

  29. Try again Vy! I have an I.Q. over 240. Can you match that?..no?..well then I guess that makes you stupid or just acting that way.

  30. What’s this about God writing Genesis and giving it to Adam? I though Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible. How Moses wrote two completely different creation stories is a mystery. Oh, one more traditional belief down the drain.

  31. Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs are very smart people too. Smartness is also relative, people can be very smart in some areas but, totally naive in others. Also Atheism is as much a religion as bald is a hair colour.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.