Reality vs. Ken Ham

The USA has a major problem with Creationism. Now before you all (Y’all?) descend on me calling me a commie secret muslim (This seems to be a major problem) you have to realise that I actually quite like America. I just feel that a lot of it is wasted on Americans who don’t seem to appreciate what they have. That the crass commercialism and the vapidity of populist American culture makes them ignorant of their own achievements and their own incredibleness that they are forced to make things up and lie to themselves.

The second time I went to the USA I made a trip to the Scripps Aquarium. Oh for those who have been, you would know whose office is near enough to the Scripps Aquarium. I have had the dubious pleasure of seeing Duane T. Gish (AKA Thermodynamics Disproves Evolution because there is an increase of net complexity and no source of energy! AKA the man who never learnt about photosynthesis or indeed noticed the giant ball of nuclear fire in the sky). It was my first “taste” of Creationism.

I was pretty lapsed at this point and began to debate evolution on forums, but I kept getting exposed to more and more creationists as time went by. My initial atheism may have been born out of the sheer madness of the violence perpetrated by Hindus and Muslims on each other but I cut my atheist teeth on creationists.

And Zack Kopplin reminds me of the things I fought for. And Zack reminds me that I have met people from the old areas where evolution wasn’t taught. People who forever would be ignorant of science because they were taught applied theology instead. People who genuinely believed in 6000 year old planets and 4000 year old floods and the like. I remember things like Dr. Dino and his museum piece of a giant. I was a kid but remember laughing at those silly things while people like Hitchens and Dennet and Dawkins fought against such silliness.

And now Zack Kopplin has come under the firing line of the always amusing Ken Ham.

Students are being brainwashed with evolutionary ideas in almost all public schools and museums, and they are expected to accept it uncritically. We’ve made this point many times over the years, but a recent news story has made the brainwashing even more obvious.1 In 2008, Louisiana passed a bill that would allow teachers in the public school system to “use supplemental materials . . . to help students critique and review scientific theories.” Such critical thinking skills should be a part of an education process and are part of many state education standards.

The state of Louisiana is a bastion of intelligent design and creationism. It is sneaking Christianity by the back-door and the fact that a then 16 year old Zack had to convince them to adopt science based textbooks is like suggesting that we should teach decimalised mathematics in schools (then again Americans still seem insanely recalcitrant to use metric measures…)

The fact remains that the state of Louisiana was attempting to undermine the proper teaching of science in order to strengthen the notion that creationism is “real”. It did this by interfering with the education of children by trying to portray Intelligent Design (ID) and Creationism as EQUAL theories rather than unscientific pseudoscience based on a world view of some 2000 year old shepherds.

Well, a 19-year-old student at Rice University, Zack Kopplin, is on a mission to repeal that law. He is being praised by the secular world for his ambition, as evidenced in a recent article about him.2

Atheistic evolutionists do not want any talk of “critiquing” or “thinking critically” about evolutionary ideas, because evolution is their way of explaining life without God, which is why we call evolution a religion. Despite their claims to the contrary, atheists use evolution as their religion to replace God. Evolution is a foundation for their set of beliefs about life and how it arose, just as creation, as described in Genesis, is our set of beliefs about how life arose. Atheists blindly hold to evolution because of their rejection of Christ. Zack Kopplin has seemingly declined to talk about his personal beliefs about God, but many atheists have basically claimed him as one of their own, including the Friendly Atheist, a well-known blogger, who published a post the other day calling Kopplin an atheist.3

Which is why we call you “Wrong”. Evolution is founded in verifiable scientific principles. Which is why it is widely accepted. Things that aren’t verified by scientific principles include the tooth fairy, Santa Clause and Jehovah (or any other god). Evolution is not a foundation of the beliefs of an atheist.

The abject lack of any evidence for any supernatural being including any gods is the reason we are atheist. Evolution is biology and is the foundation of the SCIENCE of biology. The evidence is in the genetics, evolution occurred. How it occurs is up for debate but evolution is fact much like gravity is a fact.

Hemant Mehta (Who I assume made the connection) may have assumed he is an Atheist but I really don’t care about Zack’s beliefs. They aren’t relevant to the topic. What matters is that he has recognised that the education of students through creationist principles will harm students. You are free to teach your kids whatever nonsense you wish at home but if they want to pass biology they have to answer with biology. Ken bemoans the loss of Louisiana because it means he cannot flog his bullshit to kids any more.

Creationism and Science

First, Kopplin makes the assumption that science has to be “naturalistic.” Now, there’s no reason that science must be naturalistic—this is simply an assertion made by Kopplin and atheistic evolutionists! And really, that’s the legacy of brainwashing. Atheists use the philosophy of naturalism to explain life without God. In the naturalistic view, the world and human beings are the result of chance processes. In reality, equating science with naturalism is an arbitrary definition applied to the word science by those who reject the supernatural. As a result of adopting these ideas, Kopplin has gone a step further, insisting that science must be naturalistic. And he wants this arbitrary definition of science imposed on the culture.

I do know that a few creationists have read my work and a fair few religious people have seen it too, so I shall explain this in the simplest of terms

The Scientific Revolution created modern science and developed a system of peer review and methodology which made scientific discovery easier, professional and institutional. It allowed for cooperation and interdisciplinary work. This caused a massive revolution which made people more and more invested in science. This method was so uniquely that the scientific revolution caused more revolutionary changes to human lifestyle in decades than many nations had seen in centuries. The efficacy of science is unparalleled.

But what is “Science”, well we take the word from Scientia (Latin) meaning knowledge.

It is a systematic enterprise that builds, categorises, organises and stores knowledge in the form of testable explanations. It also makes “informed predictions” about the universe. And informed prediction is the usage of existing knowledge to reliably postulate the existence of something.

The best example of this would be the Periodic Table. Early versions actually had blank spaces for elements not yet discovered by science.

Science also refers to a body of reliable knowledge that has been accrued by the scientific method and that can be explained logically and rationally. The invocation of a god is the invocation of a being whose very existence voids logic and rational thinking because this is a being who by definition is capable of voiding known “mathematical laws of the universe”.

This is a being who can make 1+1 =3 and since one can argue that mathematics is the PUREST of sciences (I like to think of science as a scale from the pure science of maths to the applied sciences of medicine and engineering)this ability would be classed as “magic”. This is an illogical and improbable being and with no evidence of such a being existing we must assume that no such being exists for the same reason we don’t trouble ourselves with the notion that Santa Clause is capable of faster than light travel.

What’s more, Kopplin—like almost all evolutionists—confuses historical science with operational (observational) science. Operational science is indeed observable, testable, falsifiable, and so on—but none of those words describes evolutionary ideas! While biblical creation may not be provable through tests and observation, neither is molecules-to-man evolution (or astronomical evolution). And in fact, the evidence that is available to us concerning our origins makes sense in the biblical creation-based worldview, not the evolutionary one. Of course, secularists mock creationists for separating out historical science and operational science. But they do that because the secularists want the word science to apply to both historical and operational science so that they can brainwash people (like Kopplin) into thinking that to believe in creation is to reject science.

Astronomical Evolution isn’t a real thing. Astronomy is the study of stars, evolution is the method by which diversity of life occurred.

This bears repeating only because creationists and people who are new to the debate read our work.

It is a well known concept in Creationism to claim that abiogenesis and “the Big Bang Theory” as parts of evolution. The fact of the matter is that all scientists involved in the case of abiogenesis and indeed cosmology would say that they don’t know EXACTLY how the first life began but they do have ideas. We don’t know what was there prior to the Big Bang and the start of our Universe but we have ideas.

But here is the thing. Neither do the Creationists, they are just placing their god in an area of no knowledge and outside the boundaries of testability. But if anyone can find out how the Big Bang or Abiogenesis took place it is Science rather than Creationists.

The ultimate joke here is that if we were to wipe out all knowledge in human hands and go back to the stone age of tool making with just the usage of science we can rediscover all the knowledge that we have today. If we tried the same with religion you would just get new ones.

Kopplin also claims that biblical creationism inhibits students’ abilities to perform operational science:

“Creationism confuses students about the nature of science,” he says. “If students don’t understand the scientific method, and are taught that creationism is science, they will not be prepared to do work in genuine fields, especially not the biological sciences. We are hurting the chances of our students having jobs in science, and making discoveries that will change the world.”

We’re now seeing this sort of claim more and more from evolutionists. They, like Kopplin, believe that if a student is taught or believes in biblical creation, he will never be able to understand or achieve anything in the realm of science. And yet, here at Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum, we have a number of researchers on staff with earned PhDs in their respective fields of science.

In reality, evolutionary ideas are not necessary to understanding and performing operational science. A biblical creationist can design and build a bus just as well as an evolutionist. Actually, a creationist may do it better if the evolutionist, acting consistently with his worldview, applies the principles of chance processes to the engineering of the bus!

Many of the PhDs are from degree mills or from non-scientific fields or are given by universities with a dubious grasp of science.

The equivalent of this would be a PhD in English responding to a medical emergency because they too have Dr. written before their name.

And what they do isn’t science. The ENTIRE field of biology stands on the notion that our biology is intrinsically linked to evolution. Medicine too. The understanding of evolution and genetics has driven medicine to produce some of the finest medicines known to man. It has also helped us understand how resistance in bacteria develops and we are thinking of ways to completely negate that with 6th generation antibiotics and a variety of therapy to “beat” evolution.

And just to spread icing on the cake of how ridiculous this paragraph is?

You don’t need to understand evolution to do scientific things. However you do need to understand it to be a biologist. Of the three “Primary” sciences not believing in Evolution would rule out any grasp of one of the two. In addition creationists have some plain stupid notions about physics and geology. Pretty much chemistry and mechanical physics are the only sciences open to such a world view and even then I am not sure.

And any real mechanic worth their salt knows that all car companies produce their cars using tried and tested principles but they still send their cars to the track for testing. That cars still sell based on market pressures and cars that don’t sell disappear. To Ken Ham anyone who reads about evolution probably cooks by throwing food randomly at walls, but in reality we understand how things evolve is not based on random chance but the guiding hand of survival.

Let us use the car analogy. The genetics in this case are the human workers and designers behind the car. The reproduction of the car occurs through the factory. The car however is subject to market pressure. IF the car doesn’t sell well then the car becomes extinct. Now a car that doesn’t sell well today may sell well tomorrow. The market is fickle and based on existing environment. Pre-Twin Towers Americans loved the big gas guzzler, today they are falling in love with the small car. The big car manufacturers had to learn to make small ones quick or they perished (or were given bailouts or were eaten by bigger companies).

The history of cars shows what happens when you don’t evolve. Just look at the British Car Industry.

Our most iconic cars, cars that captured the heart and soul of British Engineering and our love for the road are not owned by British Companies.

Mini and Rolls Royce are owned by BMW. Jaguar and Land Rover by TATA. They all fell because of the market pressures and because they failed to adapt to changes in the market place.

Kopplin continues his thoughts, drawing more faulty connections between evolution and operational science:

He worries that, if Louisiana (and Tennessee, which also has a similar law) insists on teaching students creationism, students will not be the ones discover the cure to AIDS or cancer. “We won’t be the ones to repair our own damaged wetlands and protect ourselves from more hurricanes like Katrina,” he says.

So without a belief in evolution, research for the cure for cancer will cease? This kind of faulty logic is likely the result of accepting naturalistic explanations for our origins. More than that, Kopplin is really saying that he is against critical thinking in the science classroom. His desire is to prevent students from being exposed to any alternative to evolution. But if evolutionary ideas have so much scientific support, then why work so hard to exclude any other ideas about our origins? Allowing an examination of creationist and evolutionary ideas about the history of the universe would only make evolutionary ideas more popular if it was so obvious that they were confirmed by operational science. Actually, evolutionists want legislation to protect their teaching of evolution, because they know that if students were allowed to critically analyze the evidence, they would begin to question the molecules-to-man evolutionary belief.

Yes. If you do not believe in evolution then you have no reason to believe in genetics either which is the mechanism of information storage at a cellular level of life and the key to cancer. It’s like saying that you don’t believe in aerodynamics but then go into aeronautical engineering. Creationists are not doing research to cure cancer, not without being definitely ignorant of the nature of Cancer in the first place. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding at an intrinsic level of the science.

There is a direct link to creationists and anti-ecological stances towards green economics.

There are no alternatives to evolution because Science is not a democracy. It is a meritocracy and the ideas that are taught are the ones that have acquired merit through the gauntlet of peer reviewed science. Because the ideas that make up science have survived testing on an unimaginable scale.

We don’t allow such bullshit in classrooms because children aren’t capable of understanding the basics of evolution which is an incredibly difficult subject when compared to “God Did It”. In addition the study of creationism and ID is intrinsically linked to religious belief and is therefore not allowed in schools by the establishment clause of the constitution of the USA.

I don’t mind teaching creationism in a HONEST scientific classroom, I actually had some of my first ammo to use against creationists from a Biology Class. Ken Ham and his ilk target schools because they know that places like Kansas, Louisiana and Tennessee have a slight problem with hiring outright atheists. They have a good chance that the biology teacher is a “professional teacher” rather than the doctorates of biology that I had as mine. That any controversy they “teach” can be spun using the teacher to flog evolution as if it were not a fact and creationism as a legit opposition rather in much the same way that the gravity fairy is a legit opposite to gravity.

I am sure Ken Ham will agree to the idea that we are allowed to teach Biology at his Church. Oh but we know that Critical Thinking isn’t for religion.

An evolutionist blogger (who has also written for the Chronicle of Higher Education) named Adam Laats recently addressed this fallacy, as it has been made by Kopplin, TV host Bill Nye, and a number of other prominent evolutionists. Laats explained that even though he does not agree with the views of biblical creation, it cannot be denied that creationists are good scientists:

For those of us who want to understand creationism, we need to get beyond this naive assumption that creationists don’t know what science is, or that they are somehow hypocritical in their use of technology. . . . Many creationists have studied mainstream science. In many cases, such as that of leading creation science author Henry Morris, they have earned advanced technical degrees. And, beyond such stand-out leaders such as Morris, many rank-and-file creationists have extensive science educations. . . . Also, as creationists often remind themselves and their evolutionist foes, belief in evolution is not necessary for sophisticated engineering. Dobzhansky’s claim that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution may be true, but that would not stop creationists from traveling to the moon, perfecting airplanes, or inventing the internet. In the end, I think it makes a big difference whether Americans with creationist beliefs have “forgotten what science is” or if they have a distinctly different definition of science [emphasis ours]. Building an anti-creationist argument on the foundation that creationism disables technical education, as does Tanenbaum and other prominent pro-science voices such as Bill Nye [and we would add “and Kopplin”], is both a false claim and poor strategy.

I agree.

You can be a good scientist as a creationist.

Just not a good BIOLOGIST. Henry Morris was an engineer, his science doesn’t operate on any evolutionary principles. The things listed by Laats are purely non biological science.

If you don’t believe in a heliocentric solar system you cannot be an astronomer. You are unlikely to ever send a rover to Mars. You can be a perfectly decent chemist though. Laats is correct that believing in a magical creation of humanity won’t make you a bad engineer. It will however make you a terrible biologist, geologist and anthropologist because it will force you to forgo any discoveries that prove your world view wrong OR discard your world view.

Ken Ham will never stop being a creationist. Ken Ham will NEVER be a biologist. To him biology is just a bunch of dead cut up frogs rather than the ability to produce human insulin.

Creationism and the Classroom

In an attempt to explain why creationism should not be taught, Kopplin stated, “These creationists, he argues, would be horrified to see the Vedas being taught in science class.” However, we at AiG do not advocate that government-mandated classes in creationism be taught in schools. We do support students being taught to examine the claims of any idea, such as evolution, critically with all available views and evidence at their disposal. Students need to be taught the difference between operational and historical science. When they are taught how to think correctly about science, then they will be equipped to properly understand the origins issue and the evidence used.

Oh in which case Creationism is not an adequate means to critically examine the claims of evolution any more than the tooth fairy is an adequate means to critically examine the claims of dentistry.

There is no such thing as operational and historical science, it is the fevered dream of a man who doesn’t know what the definition of science is.

The Ken Ham argument is like saying that we should critically examine the existence of Gravity. Now evolution may not be as easily noticed as Gravity but it will exist even if you don’t believe in it. It’s how we breed our dogs and our cows. It’s how we produce high yield strains of crops. It’s how we deal with antibiotics.

All these things are impossible without evolution being a real thing. The entire science of paleontology, anthropology, biology and genetics are supportive of evolution and have charted it’s progress. The question is not whether or not evolution exists but how it precisely occurs. Ken Ham is poisoning the well of American Science by making a generation of idiots who think we are still discussing whether mankind descended from apes. That fight is over. Ken Ham lost, the only way he can win now is to make people stupid.

Moreover, we would be no more horrified of the Vedas being taught in schools than we are of the anti-God religion of evolution. It is hypocritical to demand the religion of evolution be exclusively taught in the classroom while denying the presentation of other views. Secularists just do not even want evolution to be critiqued! Are they afraid people will start realizing the truth of God’s Word if we start thinking critically? Whether he realizes it or not, what Kopplin wants is more brainwashing, plain and simple.

Evolution is not a religion. There is evidence for evolution there is none for any god.

It’s simple. Throw away your religious text. Without referring to a single part of it prove that a god empirically exists and that it has the powers commonly attributed to one. If you wish to present other views then present them in the appropriate class if you wish to put religion in a biology class then you must accept science in your church and I am afraid every time the church has fought Science, science won. To the point that Catholics have straight given up on fighting against science due to the maulings the church took.

This is because both religion and science are based on faith, but how they use faith is different. Religion is entirely based on a blind obedience to faith. Science however tests it’s faith. It’s how the scientific method works.

You based on observations take something on faith. Let’s say “If a lead ball and a feather fall simultaneously they will hit the ground together”. You test it from a high tower and lo and behold you are wrong! The feather falls slower. You then go back and examine why the feather fell slower because according to your mathematics both should fall at the same speed. You then realise that there is resistance from air and that the feather is light enough to be affected by this resistance. So you try the experiment in a vacuum and lo and behold your faith in your hypothesis is affirmed and you now have an understanding about how objects fall.

If science were a religion it would say a lead ball and a feather falls at different speeds. If you eliminate the air and prove that the actual cause is the air resistance religion would claim that your experiment is false. Religion cannot afford to be wrong because it claims to have all the answers and it is infallible. Any fault must lie in the way the world is rather than the perfect faith of Ken Ham.

To claim that the world was created in 6 days by magic and we are all a product of super incest due to Noah around 4000 years ago despite all the evidence saying otherwise is to not be capable of any critical thought. The evidence is simply not on Ken Ham’s side. All he has is faith and that is what a religion is. Pure faith with no basis of testing.

To that end, Kopplin is also attacking state government school voucher programs across the U.S., claiming that because of vouchers, belief in biblical creation is being promulgated. In an article from MSNBC, Kopplin attacks private Christian schools that may benefit from state vouchers who take field trips to the Creation Museum and use the Answers in Genesis website (which contains thousands of articles written by expert scientists and Bible scholars) in their science classes.

Good on him. The government should not allow vouchers to benefit faith schools. The establishment clause is clear on this.

And thousands of articles? I have the BMJ which has thousands of articles A YEAR. I also have the Lancet the AMJ and hundreds of peer review papers that make up my science. Biology has the same. Chemistry the Same. We have MILLIONS of papers and mountains of proof that you eschew with a wave of your wand. Ken would rather teach kids to not believe in Geology than to admit that his faith is wrong.

We stand on the shoulders of giants but we don’t respect the giants we stand on. If we were anything like Ken, we would have burnt Einstein at the stake for daring to doubt Newton.

Kopplin concludes, “We must speak out to prevent funding these creationist schools with our public money.”5 In multiple posts on Twitter and Facebook, Kopplin has claimed that “Our kids are funding the creation museum [sic] with public money.” But his accusations are both unfair and unfounded. He provides no evidence that state money is being used to fund field trips to the Creation Museum, outside of the fact that some schools accept vouchers. Furthermore, if the schools he lists are using voucher money for these field trips (and there is no evidence provided to substantiate that claim), that is entirely outside our control.

If a school that accepts vouchers teaches children from a purely Christian viewpoint then the school is receiving funds to flog faith which is illegal.

For evidence that school children are being taken to see the Museum we go to Neil Denny at the Guardian. It is indicative that children are being taken to the museum as part of school programs and this is clearly in breach of the US constitution if it was a public or voucher funded school.

Even if it wasn’t it is indicative of the corruption of the education system in the USA which is churning out generations of children who can barely understand science. It is an ideological war that is making morons out of a children to produce the next generation of people who don’t grasp the subject.

Do you know why Asian kids as a whole in the west tend to be good at education? That even the “Worst” amongst us aren’t bad at our school work?

Because of how we treat education. To our parents education was a way to escape poverty. They knew the value either because they lucked out and managed to get some or they suffered because they had none. They don’t want us to make the same mistakes. If your have a system that rewards people for ignorance such as a system which treats creationism as a valid alternative to biology then you create a lack of respect for education and achievement in biology. This will knock on to the next generation of children by creating a devaluation of education in a core science. As it is I consider the american education system to be weak in core sciences. A country cannot survive the consistent degradation of science in vast amounts of it’s population.

Git Er Done.

Kopplin may be offended at the very thought of government money from school vouchers going to schools that teach biblical creation, but we find it equally offensive that tax dollars go to fund the teaching of the religion of evolution. Why should Christians, who want their children educated in biblical creation, be forced to fund public schools and secular museums that teach evolution? Kopplin is simply pushing an atheistic agenda driven by a belief in evolution and an unwillingness to think critically about the claims that underlie it. Obviously, Kopplin has not been taught critical thinking skills in these areas. He is a product of the system and cannot see that.

Evolution isn’t a religion. No more than Gravity is one.

It is a demonstrated fact. We have evolved from an ape like ancestor. Eventually we all evolved from something proto-bacterial but we have evolved.

If you don’t believe in evolution then that’s you not believing in a fact. Evolution will still occur without you. You are free to believe what you want outside the school. However inside a science classroom we teach science. Not poorly cobbled together Bible Phrases.

We have thought critically about evolution. That’s why it’s a science. No, using the Bible isn’t critical thinking.



Ken Ham is a big fan of Hammite descent. For those who are unaware it is the notion that all human life on the planet came from Noah.

It’s one of the most racist ideologies ever and we call it by it’s name because of what this ideology was used for.

Firstly to point out how stupid this is? In the 4th Millenia BC India was populated by Megharya and the Indus Valley Civilisation. That is 2000 years Before the Noachian flood has been dated to have occurred AND around about the time Ken Ham thinks Adam and Eve came about.

2000 BC is pretty well documented. It was the Middle Kingdom of Egypt, The Olmec in America.

It was the period of Aryan invasions in India and the Late Indus Civilisation and the fall of the 5 Kingdoms Era to the Xia dynasty in China.

Ken Ham thinks that during this period all of these cultures didn’t mean a flying fuck because he wants his biblical idea to be right.

The ignorance of actual history of the world isn’t the racist bit. It’s the bit after that and the source of this notion.

You see Ham was punished to be a servant to his brothers because when Noah got hammered and took his pants off (as is the want of hammered men everywhere) Ham was the one who tried to cover him up and give him some “decency”. So he was cursed to be an effective Slave.

The descendants of Ham go to Africa. The entire notion that Africa is nothing but savages is born out of this culture (Bear in mind during the 2nd millenia BC was the rise of the Nubian Pharaohs of Egypt when Egypt picked a fight with Nubia and lost) and the western practice of ignoring African history was entrenched in this notion that nothing good can come from the “Descendants of Ham”.

When black people were kept as slaves the argument put forward from Christians was precisely what Ken is flogging. That the descendants of Ham are divinely ordained to be slaves.

Challenge Zack Kopplin to a Debate

In essence, what Kopplin and many other evolutionists have done is build all these “creationist straw men” and then proceeded to tear them down by making outlandish, false statements about creationism. One news headline stated, “Meet Creationists’ Nightmare — The Teen Who Is Combating Christians & Defending Evolution in Public Schools.”6 One of our nightmares is that this teen, like many others, is spreading the lie of evolution and millions of years, which causes many to doubt the authority of Scripture. Kopplin has publically misrepresented biblical creationism, and we want to set the record straight. Would Kopplin, obviously an intelligent young man, consider a debate with one of our scientists to look at the question of whether God’s Word, starting in Genesis, is true? However, we suspect he will use the same rhetoric used by most evolutionists when responding to such an invitation, and claim creationists should not be debated because they are not “real scientists.” We could probably even draft his refusal letter for him based on what other secularists have written when they have refused to debate a creation scientist.

Millions of years? Oh No Ken Ham. Life Has Been Around for more than a billion years. We are talking thousands of millions.

I don’t think Ken Ham grasps “science at all”. Aristotle may have debated his science but we test scientific theories. So far Ken Ham’s “non-scientific hypothesis” has been found wanting at nearly every single level including the method by which he came about his hypothesis.

What Ken Ham wants is a straight up fight where he will either Gish Gallop meaning you have to argue thousands of stupid points or will ask you questions that no one knows the answers to and gives the Bible as an example of a “real answer” to such questions.

Biblical creation is actually consistent with operational science, not contradictory, and we want people to know that they can trust the Bible. The Bible is God’s Word, the true history book of the universe, and God is the Creator of the universe. As the Creator, He made the rules and laws of the universe. Christianity is not a blind faith but a defensible one.

God Word’s exhorts us to “sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear

It’s simple.

If Ken Ham can demonstrate the empirical existence of Jehovah then I have no qualms about admitting that Ken is the winner in a debate. However you know as well as I do his idea of empirical evidence is “The Bible”.

Standing Our Ground, Rescuing Our Kids

Sad news reports like those above are one of the reasons Answers in Genesis has adopted the theme this year of “Standing Our Ground, Rescuing Our Kids.” It is high time we stand our ground and stop letting the secular world influence our children. Instead, we need to teach them about the lies of the anti-God religion of evolution and show them why we can trust the Bible on creation and, more importantly, on salvation. Our Lord Jesus Christ “gave himself for our sins so that he might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father

There in lies the crux of Ken’s problem.

IF the Bible is even the TEENSIEST wrong the entire structure of the canonical faith of Ken is dead in the water. His entire world view is threatened by Biology. And to prove himself right he would drag mankind down into the gutter of ignorance.


Kopplin has sadly been brought up to believe in evolution as fact, and we sincerely hope that he will come to realize the authority of Scripture and submit to God as the Author of creation just as God said in His Word—and also that Kopplin will come to know the Lord as Savior (if he has not done so already). The battle is being fought in the hearts and minds of each individual. Imagine if all Christians had the passion that Zack Kopplin has for evolution, but instead for the cause of Christ and the authority of Scripture. Each of us needs to be doing our part, just as the Apostle Paul described

So apparently Ken’s planning to be more pro-active this year. Could this be a repeat of the late 90s and early 2000s? Where Creationists ran wild? Hope they learnt a few new tricks because Science waits for no man.

But, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ—from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love. Evolution and millions of years are in direct contradiction to God’s Word. As Christians, we need to remain strong on the authority of Scripture, showing our children that God’s Word is trustworthy, and giving them answers to the many questions the world throws at them on a daily basis.

Wait a second? I thought this was about teaching different view points and not inserting Jesus into Children? Ken can’t even keep his story straight in one article. This alone is a perfect reason to throw his viewpoint out since by his notion his entire argument is purely religious and therefore against the US Constitution to be taught in Government Schools.

Do you know what else is against God’s Word?

Anti-Rape and Anti-Slavery laws. Jehovah is kind of an amoral god don’t you know?

What a sad state of affairs to see a young man who desires so strongly that generations of children and teens would believe they are just animals who developed by natural processes. If we really are just animals, why is violence, murder, cheating, or lying wrong? Who determines what’s “moral” and what’s not? In an evolution-based culture, moral relativism would permeate—as we see happening more and more in America and other Western nations.

Yes they are. If the only thing keeping you from harming other people is a fear of retribution then you are not a moral person, you are in fact a horrible human being.

If we are just animals then violence, murder, cheating and lying are wrong because it inflicts harm on our society and our society is what is important ot the survival of the species.

If you believe in a God and are a moral group of people then can Ken Ham explain why the extremely “Christian” and therefore Moral Kent Hovind is in Jail for Tax Evasion which is basically Theft and Cheating.

This example should be a warning to parents. Kopplin is a product of the secular education system—a system that is also indoctrinating generations of children from church homes. We urge parents to recognize that their kids need to be rescued from this evil age.

Yes. If Only Zack studied in one of the schools that Liason with the Creationists then he too would have a terrible basis in biology and therefore not campaign for a proper education.

I do feel we need to make biology education more accessible to children. It was for me, I have a massive basis in biology that most American kids dream of having. It is why I occasionally write sciencey pieces at a level (hopefully) understandable by kids.

Bill Nye, The Mythbusters, Magic School Bus and the Discovery Channel drove my childhood and early adulthood. I still love Jamie and Adam for their ridiculous show that makes science look cool. Biology and my parents drove me to medicine and I know I am not the doctor my parents are because they never had the grounding in mathematics and science that I had.

And that’s the thing. Children do need rescuing from the likes of Ken Ham. In a world of ignorance the man with all the answers is King. In order to create a world of ignorance Ken has to neuter Science. It may be just me but I have noticed a few more creationists about doing things like they did in the old days.

It is fitting for Ken Ham to portray knowledge as evil for the most dangerous thing in the Garden of Eden was Knowledge.


  1. glodson says

    Ken Ham is the real Curse of Ham.

    I am still amazed that Young Earth Creationism is both a thing, and has such a loud voice here in the US. It is so easily shown to be flat out wrong, but it still holds on. Intent on getting into every part of science. Because much of cosmology, built off physics, doesn’t make any sense with their nonsense.

    And I’m wondering if he was thinking of Stellar Evolution when he said “Astronomical Evolution.” Not that would actually help, at all. Because Stellar Evolution has as much to do with the Theory of Evolution as Scooby Doo has to do with the Louisiana Purchase.

  2. says

    Well said.

    One very small correction, which glodson touched on: we do refer to many different processes in astronomy as ‘evolution': there is stellar evolution, evolution of galaxies, and evolution of cosmological parameters. In these cases, evolution is used in the pre-Darwin sense of any pattern of gradual change. The word is overloaded with many different non-overlapping meanings. Given Ham’s lack of interest in actually learning science, perhaps his complete confusion is understandable.

  3. glodson says

    @2 Reading it again, I’m thinking we might be stretching what he might have been referring to when Ham said “Astronomical Evolution.” Maybe this is how his argument is supposed to work. These are like tiny brain bombs that he plants, and when people who have a modicum of education find one, they explode. Leaving the victim dealing with a horrible feedback loop of confusion just trying to figure out what he meant in the first place.

  4. says


    My guess is that Ham came across the term ‘stellar evolution’ or something similar at one point, and is either choosing to not know what it actually means or lying – both as a way to obfuscate what evolution is in biology.

  5. Psychopomp Gecko says

    “What a sad state of affairs to see a young man who desires so strongly that generations of children and teens would believe they are just animals who developed by natural processes.”

    I’d rather be an animal than a creationist. As a living, breathing part of this universe, I can look up and see the vastness of space and the distant stars. Ken Ham, on the other hand, has to ignore any of those stars more than 6000 lightyears away. It’s a much darker, smaller, and less majestic reality he lives in as he must think of it only in the way a bunch of scruffy-looking goatherders used to, rather than in the way our scientific knowledge and technology has shown it to actually be.

  6. wholething says

    Ham and the creationists do cargo cult science. Operational science is what works even when done using cargo cult methods. They don’t understand that there are actual thoughts going on. Their thoughts are what they are trained to think. If it’s a new idea, it must be either a revelation or a temptation. Novel inferences using science would most likely be in the latter category.

  7. sillose says

    a correction to glodson; i agree with most of what you said and i know im just nitpicking but i feel its important that we get these things right. speaker of the house doo played a major role in the louisiana purchase. what the hell were you doing during history class to think otherwise? read a goddamn book sometime.

  8. glodson says

    @7 I never knew a great dane cartoon took part in the US House around 1803. Learn something new everyday.

  9. thebookofdave says

    Creationists don’t perceive how ridiculous their claims are. Their dependence on dogma is echoed four centuries after Galileo’s observations challenged an official church position on natural science. You could replace ‘evolution’ with ‘heliocentrism’, and the argument would essentially be the same. Ken Ham can’t think outside a single book, and yet he accuses us of being brainwashed. I’m sure he has read about hypocrisy, since it was denounced in that same book, but believes the label sticks only to those who he doesn’t like.

  10. rthur2013 says

    In a properly sane world, Ken Ham and his idiotic kind would not exist. In a mildly sane world, he would be nothing more than a fringe voice, one among millions of morons babbling away in the dark corners of the Internet.

    In our world, he’s a wealthy and influential individual whose publications are standard reading for the (disgustingly large) Creationist public.

  11. Trudie Zemel says

    Chinese dry-cured hams have been recorded in texts since before the Song dynasty and used in myriad dishes. Several types exist in Qing dynasty cuisine and are used in dishes of stewing hams.

  12. says

    I know that @11 is just Spam, but I am sure that Chinese dry-cured hams are far older than the line of Ham as discussed by Ham.

    See what I did there? (Damn, I;m brilliant! :D )

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>