Even when mocking Miley Cyrus, Ken Ham embarrasses himself by exposing his ignorance of evolution.

{In a matter of just a few hours, this blog article by Professor Tertius has already brought the largest reader-visitor volume by far in the entire history of the Bible.and.Science.Forum. We gladly welcome so many new readers and encourage everyone to also check out the very popular draft of Prof. T’s in-progress autobiography. As reviewer Steve Poole described it, “Everyone’s favorite ex-YEC, ex-octogenarian both entertains and educates readers through his first-person account of the darkest day in the history of creation science and YECism.”  Share this link with friends and foes alike:

The April Fools Day Massacre & the Seven Deadly Questions YECists Dread.

“We should all challenge those annoying, science-illiterate fans of the ‘Question Evolution Project’ with Professor Tertius’ hard-hitting, creation-science-destroying barrage at the Bible.and.Science.Forum blog.  He conclusively demonstrates that the Bible says nothing to deny evolutionary processes and billions of years–and that angry, origins-industry entrepreneurs misleading so many science-illiterate Christians must end their obsessions with popular traditions and start paying attention to the Hebrew Bible text, thereby ending their unnecessary war on science.”}

TODAY’S BLOG:  Ham doubts The Theory of Evolution’s explanation of Miley Cyrus’ sexual preferences.
[Looks stupid as a result. Film at 11.]


Miley Cyrus recently declared that she was apparently willing to have intimate relations with most anybody of legal age–but not an animal.   Ken Ham thought that made no sense and insisted on chiding Ms. Cyrus in a rambling rant. [I know. The AIG website is composed of very little other than rambling rants which make no sense.]

Here’s Ham’s core complaint:

Question for her: Why not involve an animal? On what basis does she decide that? Besides, if there’s no God and she’s just a result of evolution, then she is merely an animal anyway. And those she interacts with sexually are just animals—so why not any animals? In other words, she has decided to draw a line for some reason—but what reason?
— https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/06/10/miley-cyrus-which-ark-is-she-rejecting/

Well, Ken, if you would actually bother to learn a little bit about evolution, you would discover that it has much to do with survival and reproduction. And, believe it or not, evolution has made all animals, including Homo sapiens sapiens, desire to have sex primarily with others of the same species. (Ken would probably prefer the word “kind” and in this case I won’t argue the issue. When it comes to sex, it takes all kinds. And no doubt Ms. Cyrus will find hers.)

All of this is obviously new to Ken, so I’ll say it again: evolution explains a lot about survival and reproduction. Why do you suppose that is, Ken?  I would bet that it is because only sex with another of the same species is going to produce viable offspring which can also reproduce and pass along genes.

So, Miley Cyrus’ preference for sex with other humans but not with other kinds of animals makes complete sense in evolutionary terms.  Not sure why Ken finds it unexpected. Yet human-with-human sexual relations also makes complete sense in terms of the Book of Genesis as well!  So why are you complaining, Ken?

We can’t help but notice that this is yet another instance where the Bible and Science simply have nothing to fight about and Ken Ham really should just chill out and accept it: Humans prefer sex with other humans and not other species of animals. I’d say that her ruling out sex with non-human animals makes complete sense for anyone who understands The Theory of Evolution and for anyone who understands Genesis in the Bible.

But as for whining origins ministry entrepreneurs…not so much.

(c) 2015. Professor Tertius & the Bible.and.Science.Forum at Gmail.com.
All rights reserved. Email us at Gmail.com address for permissions on reposting and publication.

If you enjoyed this blog article, we think you will also like:
Evolution-Denialism: It’s About Feelings, Not Just Facts
An Open Letter to Young Earth Creationists Who Misrepresented Lucy News



Filed under Uncategorized

7 responses to “Even when mocking Miley Cyrus, Ken Ham embarrasses himself by exposing his ignorance of evolution.

  1. Well-put. I hope Mr. Ham reads it. Has he ever replied here, or given indication that he treads your blog?

  2. Has he ever replied here, or given indication that he reads your blog?
    No indications that Ken Ham reads my comments but Georgia Purdom used to get upset with me, even when I posted on the most obscure forums, such as when I dared criticize AIG’s “baraminology project” announcement and nonsense. It was always obvious that she was using Google Alert to track any criticisms of her and her boss. However, once I chided her about that–by interjecting “Good morning, Georgia!” whenever I mentioned her online–I think she realized that she needed to be less…obvious. So hardly a peep since!

  3. By the way, readers, this morning I was surprised to see that despite posting my Miley Cyrus blog article just a few hours ago, WordPress stats tell me that it set new all-time records for Total Visitors and Total Views for this blog.

    I don’t know if that is because of the major laugh potential that came to mind when readers realized that Ken Ham had something to say about Miley Cyrus or… well… I don’t know exactly why!

    Let’s face it: we all know that ol’ Kenny Boy is going to say something totally ignorant about evolution that will remind us of just how little he comprehends about science topics in general. Yet, despite the endless replay of Ham’s familiar tunes, I think there is within all of us a natural sense of curiosity that he may yet surprise us with some new kind of plunge into the pool of science ignorance. With his Miley Cyrus comments, where he actually thought that The Theory of Evolution did not predict a preference for mating-partners of the same species, I can’t help but wonder if even always-loyal Georgia Purdom [Good morning, Georgia!] felt a twinge of embarrassment that her boss had managed to make a fool of himself far more than the board established MDA, the Maximum Daily Allowance, a carefully monitored metric at AIG. (Their management realized a long time ago that if they went too far past the “Full Blown Idiot” setting on the RoboHam’s Ham-meter dial, critics might think that Ken “Rain Man” Ham was merely a character played by a brilliant entrepreneur who knew how to milk a gullible donor pool.)

    Whatever may have brought so many visitors to this particular edition of Professor Tertius’ blog, I always return to the gaper’s block phenomenon: We just can’t resist the urge to stare at the carnage as we very slowly drive by the scene of the terrible tragedy that is Ken Ham & Co.

  4. No doubt by this point at least some of my Christian brethren are shaking pointer fingers at me (1) for daring to use the word “fool” while describing one, (2) and for allegedly failing to apply Matthew 18:15 by privately confronting Ham for his offenses and sins.

    Firstly (#1), I won’t take time here for an extensive tutorial on the Aramaic word RACCA [“Thou fool…”]—-but beware of equivocation fallacies. The Book of Proverbs has much to say about fools and a Bible-affirming Christian should use the wisdom of Proverbs to call foolishness what it is. Jesus wasn’t afraid to apply name-calling where name-calling was due. (After all, calling one’s Pharisee opponents white-washed sepulchers is about as direct, accurate, and offensive as one can get!) Moreover, the Bible is packed throughout with rebukes for bad and foolish conduct.

    Strong rebukes serve more than just an instructive purpose. As said the farmer after hitting his donkey over the head with a 2×4: “Before politely explaining what he needs to do, first I must get his attention.” When I was a gullible YEC blindly repeating the pseudo-science of Morris and Gish back in the 1960’s–because I assumed they had done their fact-checking, understood the science and scripture evidence, and valued truth and honesty–I do wish that a science-literate and scripture-literate Christ-follower had hit me over the head with a two-by-four to get my attention. My background predisposed me to be overly trusting. A harsh rebuke would have resonated long after its application–because I had increasing hesitations that pathological lying and habits like deceptive quote-mining were being used to patch the many holes and contradictions in “creation science.” Indeed, the Bible calls a proper rebuke a sign of a good friend.

    Secondly (#2), many [myself included] have indeed tried to confront privately Ken Ham and staff with the sins and silliness of AIG’s pathological lying, foolishness, false teaching, divisiveness, pharisaic behaviors, arrogance and pride. Yet, because all such efforts have failed, Christians are applying the final stage of Matthew 18 confrontation: dealing with the public sins publicly to inform all Christians so that others do not fall into the same sins. (Obviously, those who misapply “Judge not lest ye be judged!” betray their ignorance of scripture.)

    We who are Christ-followers have been far too lax in allowing the sins and foolishness of Ken Ham and others to fester within Christendom and to obfuscate and dishonor the teachings of Jesus Christ. I share culpability in that failure.

  5. Meanwhile, many millions of dollars in donations from gullible Christians are funding Ken Ham’s massive and pointless Ark Park tourist travesty. [If the Ark Park’s purpose is truly to educate, imagine what even just a few million dollars could build in terms of a high-caliber, state-of-the-art on-line “virtual destination”, perhaps even exploiting 3D virtual reality technology to reach far larger audiences, including those who could never afford to pay the high theme-park entrance fees. Moreover, a “virtual destination” on-line would have very limited ongoing operational and maintenance costs. Of course, like all other potentially embarrassing questions and “inconvenient” comments at AIG and related webpages, censorship and deletion occur within minutes. Georgia Purdom, why it that?]

    So, why spend so much money on a major tourist destination at such a poor location which will not be able to cover its own operational costs in the long term and will require massive subsidies from AIG, especially once their Young Earth Creationist and home-schooler demographic within driving distance have already visited once? Many American Fundamentalists love shrines and memorials. Indeed, the Creation Science Hall of Fame boondoggle is exactly that sort of pointless shrine and is planned at a location between the Creation Museum and the Ark Park.

    Why do the founders of the Creation Science Hall of Fame think there needs to be a building and not just a website? The Hall of Fame will supposedly contain “exhibits” of various items once owned and used by actual Young Earth Creationists! (Just imagine seeing the very typewriter Henry Morris used in writing The Genesis Flood. Perhaps we will even see the library books John Whitcomb Jr. consulted in order to copy and then edit, in order to “sanitize”, Seventh Day Adventist prophetess Ellen White’s “visualizations” of the ancient earth so that evangelical readers would have no idea that the particular brand of Young Earth Creationist in The Genesis Flood came from what most fundamentalist Christians at that time considered “an evil cult.”)

    Yes, we keep coming back to the topic of rampant foolishness.

    • Ashley, my favorite portion of that “YECs write stupid things” text would be:

      … but there is also very compelling evidence that is consistent with a world-wide flood as described in the Bible. A few examples are poly-strata fossils that pass through different layers of rock, written accounts of a world-wide flood among different civilizations, our ability to make successful predictions with geological models that assume a world-wide flood occurred, and seashells on top of mountains. ”

      1) Polystrate fossils basically don’t exist at all. Indeed, the lack of truly polystrate fossils is a huge problem for YECs.

      2) “…our ability to make successful predictions with geological models…” Really? I know “creation science” literature fairly well and I’ve NEVER seen any such “predictions”, let alone successful ones.

      3) Anyone impressed by seashells on mountains sounds like their science acumen is stuck at third-grade level. If they are interested in the remains of sea creatures, I wish they’d explain how a flood of a little over a year’s duration could produce enough diatoms to “grow” so many generations of tiny skeletons to build the White Cliffs of Dover–or to leave behind such thick layers of chalk and limestone. (And if the Grand Canyon is their favorite remnant of flood debris, why as there such thick and diverse layers? How does a flood produce such a geologic feature and why don’t ACTUAL floods in modern times produce similar features?)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s