Ken hams it up, parodizes self

| 71 Comments

My old friend, the Alert Reader, sent me a cartoon that he claimed had appeared on Ken Ham’s Facebook page. Captioned “Famous sayings of Ken Ham,” the cartoon shows a caricature of Ham and three balloons, including this one:

It’s designed to do what it does do.

What it does do it does do well.

Doesn’t it?

Yes, it does.

I think it does.

Do you? I do.

Hope you do, too. Do you?

I found it hard to believe that the cartoon was not a parody and wondered why it is found on Ham’s own Facebook page. The Alert Reader responded with the following, also reportedly from Ham’s Facebook page:

Yesterday I spoke to hundreds of children and adults at the Homeschool Convention (Teach Them Diligently Convention) in Spartanburg, South Carolina. To help children remember what I teach them, I now give them two cards with colorful information on the front and back of each card that summarizes what is taught during the presentation. This is the back of one of these cards. The atheists have already had emotional meltdowns across the [I]nternet because I teach students how to think correctly about origins by asking ‘Were You There?’–so they can continue to have their meltdowns as thousands upon thousands of children are given these cards across the nation. I will be giving these out to the hundreds of kids who will be attending the AiG conference in the Atlanta area today and tomorrow.

OK, I have to agree that the cartoon is real. I have yet to see a better example of Poe’s law. Ken Ham, once again, commits autoparody.

71 Comments

Were you there Ken? Were you? Really? Really?

Then STFU already.

The platypus was once endangered and is now threatened. I guess it doesn’t do what it was designed to do very well after all. Same goes for the 90% of all species that have ever lived that have already gone extinct.

Ken should realize that lying to children is going to backfire. Fine by me.

This song would be hilarious if it was about Yersinia Pestis

He said that about the giant panda, which the evilutionists point out happens to appear to be a carnivore, yet eats bamboo (it eats a small critter from time to time, for the record). And he brought up the panda in the first place to pretend that teeth don’t indicate diet of an animal–oh yes, use the exception that illuminates the rule.

Yes, Hammy he is. He seems to think he’s clever.

Glen Davidson

Hey! I was expecting the barrage of stupidly dishonest creationist talking points, but please issue a warning before linking to something this likely to be an earworm. Remember that some of us have severe sensitivity to inane singsong.

Now I need to listen to something to break the earworm

DS said:

Ken should realize that lying to children is going to backfire. Fine by me.

Except when lying to children for Jesus creates a generation or four of Morons for Jesus who insist that our current President is the Anti-Christ for not being an elderly white Republican male, or that we don’t need to legislate protection of the environment or safety and health of workers because Jesus is on His way any minute now to destroy the world.

We should have a contest here at PT to see who can come up with a catchy song that highlights poor design. From air breathing whales to vestigial tails, from wisdom teeth that hurt to an appendix that can burst, from a backwards eye to a squirrel that can’t fly … well you get the idea. It should ridicule those who see “intelligent design” everywhere in simple language that children can understand. We can include it in a home school curriculum, just like the hamster.

DS said:

From air breathing whales to vestigial tails, from wisdom teeth that hurt to an appendix that can burst, from a backwards eye to a squirrel that can’t fly …

It should also have something about a birth canal going between the hip bones in an erect biped.

Henry J said:

DS said:

From air breathing whales to vestigial tails, from wisdom teeth that hurt to an appendix that can burst, from a backwards eye to a squirrel that can’t fly …

It should also have something about a birth canal going between the hip bones in an erect biped.

And a waste disposal canal going through a pleasure center.

DS said:

We should have a contest here at PT to see who can come up with a catchy song that highlights poor design. From air breathing whales to vestigial tails, from wisdom teeth that hurt to an appendix that can burst, from a backwards eye to a squirrel that can’t fly … well you get the idea. It should ridicule those who see “intelligent design” everywhere in simple language that children can understand. We can include it in a home school curriculum, just like the hamster.

That’s fine, but unlike Ken Ham, we need to double-check it for accuracy.

How many inaccuracies can you count in that idiotic Buddy Davis song?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp5lmJxwGRk

To start with, is a platypus’ beak homologous to a duck’s beak? Buddy Davis says it is.

Is a platypus’ spur homologous to a rooster’s spur? Buddy Davis says it is.

I’m not an expert on platypus anatomy, but this all seems fishy.

Someone should ask Ken Ham whether his mother was married to his father before he was born, and how does he know? Was he there?

DS said:

We should have a contest here at PT to see who can come up with a catchy song that highlights poor design. From air breathing whales to vestigial tails, from wisdom teeth that hurt to an appendix that can burst, from a backwards eye to a squirrel that can’t fly … well you get the idea. It should ridicule those who see “intelligent design” everywhere in simple language that children can understand. We can include it in a home school curriculum, just like the hamster.

Something for Schroedingers Dog? (of AtBC fray)

Fun thing about Ham’s people at AIG: They always clamor for verbal debates, but when evidence is given to them in written format, they are quick to censor uncomfortable facts or posts out, letting their lies stand.

Reynold Hall said:

Fun thing about Ham’s people at AIG: They always clamor for verbal debates, but when evidence is given to them in written format, they are quick to censor uncomfortable facts or posts out, letting their lies stand.

Same thing with UD, ICR, DI, CMI, etc etc.

The image in question

Yes, that’s it, thanks! I did not post it because it is subject to copyright protection. It strikes me now as being even sillier, with the 3 out-of-context balloons grouped together like that. But, then, I was not there.

The other slogan, another Buddy Davis song, is equally awkward: “Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth.” Every so often there’s a video on Ken Ham’s FB page of some little kid singing this to Ham at the creation museum. It’s bizarre to see some cute kid singing a tongue-twister about billions of dead things. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUraR6rRwBM

“Where you there” is actually coherent compared to “what it does do it does do well”.

Did someone call for a song…?

Thumbs on a panda and beaks used by finches,// Eyes wired backwards, and necks grown by inches,// Whales that had hands, fish with eyes that are blind;// These are all clues that it wasn’t designed.

Teeth not erupting – so what are they doing?// Telling us they were once useful for chewing.// We learned to cook, no more use did they find –// This is a clue that it wasn’t designed.

Spines that bend inward, which gives us back trouble,// And an appendix that bursts like a bubble//, Must ingest vitamin C when we’ve dined,// These are all clues that it wasn’t designed.

When the fundies, when the DI, rort and fantasize,// I simply remember my favourite clues, and then I know they… tell lies.

I have to say that I’m not the biggest fan of the “bad design” school of arguments.

What we see in nature are adaptations that reflect the constraints and contingencies of evolution.

They can be construed as “bad” in the sense that they are often not, intuitively, what a human would give to a machine for performing the same function.

On the other hand, since “bad” is a subjective judgment, and since proposed creator deities are inscrutable, that class of argument isn’t as strong as pointing out positive evidence for evolution* and asking for positive evidence of ID/creationism.

*Yes, I know, when you say “bad” you imply “must have evolved because a deity could have done it otherwise”, but it isn’t quite the same as positive evidence.

harold said:

I have to say that I’m not the biggest fan of the “bad design” school of arguments.

What we see in nature are adaptations that reflect the constraints and contingencies of evolution.

They can be construed as “bad” in the sense that they are often not, intuitively, what a human would give to a machine for performing the same function.

On the other hand, since “bad” is a subjective judgment, and since proposed creator deities are inscrutable, that class of argument isn’t as strong as pointing out positive evidence for evolution* and asking for positive evidence of ID/creationism.

*Yes, I know, when you say “bad” you imply “must have evolved because a deity could have done it otherwise”, but it isn’t quite the same as positive evidence.

Go to t.o, and see what they think.

harold said:

I have to say that I’m not the biggest fan of the “bad design” school of arguments.

What we see in nature are adaptations that reflect the constraints and contingencies of evolution.

They can be construed as “bad” in the sense that they are often not, intuitively, what a human would give to a machine for performing the same function.

On the other hand, since “bad” is a subjective judgment, and since proposed creator deities are inscrutable, that class of argument isn’t as strong as pointing out positive evidence for evolution* and asking for positive evidence of ID/creationism.

*Yes, I know, when you say “bad” you imply “must have evolved because a deity could have done it otherwise”, but it isn’t quite the same as positive evidence.

Sure, plagarized errors are a better argument, but if the dickwads want to to have children singing about “design”, bad design is a lot easier to sing about than SINE insertions.

EvoDevo said:

harold said:

I have to say that I’m not the biggest fan of the “bad design” school of arguments.

What we see in nature are adaptations that reflect the constraints and contingencies of evolution.

They can be construed as “bad” in the sense that they are often not, intuitively, what a human would give to a machine for performing the same function.

On the other hand, since “bad” is a subjective judgment, and since proposed creator deities are inscrutable, that class of argument isn’t as strong as pointing out positive evidence for evolution* and asking for positive evidence of ID/creationism.

*Yes, I know, when you say “bad” you imply “must have evolved because a deity could have done it otherwise”, but it isn’t quite the same as positive evidence.

Go to t.o, and see what they think.

This cryptic comment is probably by a science denier. The weaselly structure alone - why don’t you just say what they “think of it” and show evidence for your claim? Who’s “they”? - makes that likely.

As we all know, any time any scientist or science supporter has a meaningful, even if minor dispute with another scientist or science supporter - something which the nature of science makes inevitable - ID/creationists latch onto it.

In their authoritarian model, there are no civil, ultimately resolved disputes - only schisms based on rival claims of dominant authority.

Therefore let me clarify. I do not think that “bad design” claims are incorrect. From my perspective, they are obviously correct.

The theory of evolution powerfully explains the diversity and relatedness of life on earth and is strongly supported by multiple converging independent lines of evidence.

To the extent that I have any “objection” to the “bad design” type of argument, it’s merely that I think that there are even better arguments in support of the theory of evolution.

As a singer, congratulations to Dave Luckett for his rewrite of “My Favorite Things”. It even scanned properly, which few people know how to do (and few people know you’re supposed to do).

On the issue of Bad Design arguments, ID types are completely inconsistent. If you use a Bad Design argument, they lecture you about how we don’t know the intentions of The Designer, so that it is improper to speculate about what her intentions were. So, they argue, you can’t assume that design is always good design. They sound enormously pleased with themselves at this argument.

But then when someone argues that much of our DNA is junk, they are completely self-contradictory. They are just sure that this can’t be. Why? Because it wouldn’t be Good Design.

Oopsies! Contradiction!

Dave Luckett said:

Did someone call for a song…?

Thumbs on a panda and beaks used by finches,// Eyes wired backwards, and necks grown by inches,// Whales that had hands, fish with eyes that are blind;// These are all clues that it wasn’t designed.

Teeth not erupting – so what are they doing?// Telling us they were once useful for chewing.// We learned to cook, no more use did they find –// This is a clue that it wasn’t designed.

Spines that bend inward, which gives us back trouble,// And an appendix that bursts like a bubble//, Must ingest vitamin C when we’ve dined,// These are all clues that it wasn’t designed.

When the fundies, when the DI, rort and fantasize,// I simply remember my favourite clues, and then I know they… tell lies.

This is extremely impressive. The John Coltrane version (no lyrics of course) is still my favorite, but this is good.

If you want to use the “good design” argument, you open yourself up to the “bad design” argument. If you don’t want that used against you then don’t go there. Sure there are better arguments, but if the goal is a cheap sound byte with more style than substance, sure we can go there. The good part is that they won’t even be able to complain about it without showing themselves up as the hypocrites that they are.

It’s like putting a defendant on the stand. You automatically open up a whole line of questioning that you might not want exposed to the light of day.

So, it the platypus does what it does so well, how come it almost went extinct and is still nearly endangered? How come it can’t bear live young? How come it doesn’t have poison fangs and wings and all sorts of other neat stuff? Is god a joke? Does she have no common sense? Does she lack imagination?

DS said: If you want to use the “good design” argument, you open yourself up to the “bad design” argument.

Bad design is still “design”. Is malaria (or plague or Ebola or Yellow Fever, etc) an example of “bad design”?

How about some They Might be Giants? Science is Real

Paul Burnett said:

DS said: If you want to use the “good design” argument, you open yourself up to the “bad design” argument.

Bad design is still “design”. Is malaria (or plague or Ebola or Yellow Fever, etc) an example of “bad design”?

No, good design. What they do, they do so well. Or, as so ably put by Eric Idle:

All things dull and ugly, All creatures short and squat, All things rude and nasty, The Lord God made the lot. Each little snake that poisons, Each little wasp that stings, He made their brutish venom. He made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous, All evil great and small, All things foul and dangerous, The Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet, Each beastly little squid– Who made the spikey urchin? Who made the sharks? He did!

All things scabbed and ulcerous, All pox both great and small, Putrid, foul and gangrenous, The Lord God made them all.

Paul Burnett said:

DS said: If you want to use the “good design” argument, you open yourself up to the “bad design” argument.

Bad design is still “design”. Is malaria (or plague or Ebola or Yellow Fever, etc) an example of “bad design”?

Fine. But it’s not design by an omnipotent god. Indeed, it might just be the illusion of design.

Werewolf Dongle said:

TomS said:

I quite agree with everything that harold said.

One thing that I would stress is that YEC is a relatively recent development. Before the 1960s, almost all of the anti-evolutionists accepted an old Earth. Anti-evolutionists among the early fundamentalists were almost reasonable, particularly considering that in that era there was genuine conflict among scientists about some of the major features of evolution, and absolute figures for dating were hard to come by. For some reason, just as evolutionary biology and geology were experiencing major advances, the anti-evolutionists took up YEC and Flood Geology.

James Ussher discovered the true date for creation back in the 1600’s. Scripture was well understood before the 1960’s. However, Henry Morris did provide scientific proof of the Bible’s veracity during that time due to the rising religion of evolution that was trying, and still is, to make Christianity illegal.

Yeah, Sunday, October 23, 4004BC (at 9:00a.m. no less – or so some claim. That may be a misquoting of Ussher, however.) Regardless, it is about as true as the Tooth Fairy.

And could you please provide some of Morris’s “scientific proof?” That should be interesting. Morris is a documented crackpot – it appears to run in the family, as well. His son, John, is also a crackpot. I see you are following in the same footsteps.

diogeneslamp0 said:

Werewolf Dongle may in fact be a Poe.

However, if any of you want to go underground as a Poe, I have a word of advice: include many pseudo-persuasive links and references to creationist “intellectuals”. That’s the best way to fool fundamentalists into thinking you’re a fundamentalist too.

I think Dongle may not be real because he has included no links nor references to his creationist authorities. Compare Dongle vs. a real lunatic, like Kairosfocus or BornAgain77, with their long list of links to YouTube videos about the quantum powers of the Shroud of Turin and every form of bat-shit occultism.

Harold’s addendum to Poe’s law -

There are factors that help differentiate real creationists from Poes. Not 100%, but we can favor one or the other.

In favor of Poe (these features are rare in creationists and common in Poes) -

1) Any sign of a sense of humor.

2) Direct, positive seemingly creationist claims instead of weasel-worded, incoherent evolution denial.

3) Any awareness of the history of scholarly thought, e.g. actually knowing the name of James Ussher, instead of total reliance on post-modern creationist and right wing web sites. Even awareness of historical styles of fundamentalism and puritanism is a sign of a Poe; if someone is quoting “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”, that’s probably a Poe.

4) A reaction to a science-based story favors a Poe.

In favor of real creationist -

1) Extensive linking to creationist and right wing web sites.

2) Extensive plagiarizing from such web sites.

3) They all, with a couple of ostracized exception frequently seen here, got the “We’re going with plausible deniability to get into public schools” memo, so…efforts to hide religious claims (beyond opposition to “atheism”) and focus on denial of evolution favor a real creationist.

4) Try to change the subject to abiogenesis.

5) Obsessive verbosity to the point of raising the question of mental illness is nearly always a sign of true creationist.

6) Tend to explode onto threads that criticize ID books or respond to evolution denial bills, or bring up scientific subjects that are specifically used in creationist propaganda. They generally don’t care, literally don’t care, about the science. They may bark about whale evolution or the bacterial flagellum because their masters trained them to hear those as dog whistles. They aren’t very likely to respond to discussion of scientific material unless it’s something like whale evolution, Lucy, or Archaeopterix, though.

7) Incidentally, although there are exceptions to these rules, and I think anyone who frequents this blog can think of some, the exceptions are rare and tend to have been ostracized and banned by the creationist blogs long ago.

8) Although insulting language is non-specific and is used at least equally by Poes, the use of nothing but insulting language coupled with whining, self-pitying, claims of “only looking for a dialogue”, is characteristic of a sincere creationist.

Poes could mimic everything I’ve described for real creationists, but they tend not to, for a simple reason. It can probably be kind of fun to play the eighteenth century Great Awakening preacher and make all sorts of outrageous and bombastic comments. Actually spending hours cutting and pasting from astroturf right wing websites, actually tying yourself in a knot clumsily trying to promote post-modern science denial in a “plausibly deniable” way and so on - not so much fun.

diogeneslamp0 said:

Werewolf Dongle may in fact be a Poe.

However, if any of you want to go underground as a Poe, I have a word of advice: include many pseudo-persuasive links and references to creationist “intellectuals”. That’s the best way to fool fundamentalists into thinking you’re a fundamentalist too.

I think Dongle may not be real because he has included no links nor references to his creationist authorities. Compare Dongle vs. a real lunatic, like Kairosfocus or BornAgain77, with their long list of links to YouTube videos about the quantum powers of the Shroud of Turin and every form of bat-shit occultism.

How can you be sure I’m not just warming up?

How can you be sure I don’t place links to other creationist intellectuals because God called me to fulfill that role?

You’re busted, Dongle. Humour. Dead giveaway. You’re a poe.

Werewolf Dongle mentioned “creationist intellectuals”

[chortle] Luckily, I have a coffee-proof keyboard…

Please, Wolfie, name a few of the brightest lights of the “creationist intellectual” pantheon.

It will be interesting to see if Dembski/Meyer/Behe/et al are on the list - or Morris/Gish/et al are - or (more likely) Hovind/Comfort/Ham/et al. Which will it be?

We await with baited breath.

We await with baited breath

.

One of my pet peeves. Baited breath lures varmints into your mouth. Bated breath is holding yur breath in anticipation of something.

Jon Fleming said:

We await with baited breath

.

One of my pet peeves. Baited breath lures varmints into your mouth. Bated breath is holding yur breath in anticipation of something.

I know that - I was baiting him - I used the term correctly. [srsly]

My theory: Ken has a deep psychiatric problem stemming from the childhood (and ongoing) trauma resulting from bearing a surname that, in common English, means a pig’s ass.

(I know folks with a name pronounced like that, but some ancestor had the good sense to spell it ‘Hamm’.

My theory: Ken has a deep psychiatric problem

This part is almost certain to be true.

Just Bob said:

My theory: Ken has a deep psychiatric problem stemming from the childhood (and ongoing) trauma resulting from bearing a surname that, in common English, means a pig’s ass.

There’s something about Ham that’s just not kosher.

diogeneslamp0 said:

Just Bob said:

My theory: Ken has a deep psychiatric problem stemming from the childhood (and ongoing) trauma resulting from bearing a surname that, in common English, means a pig’s ass.

There’s something about Ham that’s just not kosher.

For some reason, the other creationists don’t seem to like his sons. I hear them going off about the Sons of Ham from time to time.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Matt Young published on May 6, 2013 8:00 AM.

Challenge: research in the 1000 most common words was the previous entry in this blog.

Loxodonta africana is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter