Creation Museum’s Ken Ham: ‘Bill Nye Really Doesn’t Understand Science’

It was bad enough when Dr. David Menton and Dr. Georgia Purdom of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum responded to Bill Nye the Science Guy with a video all about how evolution makes no sense.

Now, Creation Museum founder Ken Ham himself is jumping into the fray:

Ham talks about Bill Nye’s “agenda” (teaching science!), uses Nye’s Humanism as a strike against him, and attacks Nye for being an engineer who promotes science (as if there’s no connection between the two fields).

To point out the problems with this video would take a long time.

So I’ll summarize it in a sentence: Ken Ham is ignorant. Really ignorant. (Ok, two sentences.)

He’s so ignorant, in fact, he actually criticizes Nye for failing to teach people to think critically. I repeat: A Creationist just criticized somebody else for not teaching people how to think critically.

I was going to call Ken Ham a liar, but he’s not a liar. He’s just so self-deluded that he actually believes his own tripe. He really believes Genesis serves as credible science text.

As a Redditor pointed out, getting called scientifically ignorant by Ken Ham is like a blind person telling you you’re ugly. They have no idea…

Oh. And, as always, Ham has disabled comments on the video so no one can point out his mistakes in a place where children might be able to see it.

I actually emailed the Creation Museum a few days ago to ask if they disabled comments due to the difficulties of moderating them… which I thought could be an easy “out” for them. But they still haven’t responded to the softball question.

(via Why Evolution is True)

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • Silo Mowbray

    …can’t breathe…somebody…get me…oxygen…

    I laughed so damned hard I think I squeezed out a drop. Ken Ham. Claiming that Bill Nye doesn’t get science. Or critical thinking.

    Theists like Ham will kill me with “humour-triggered asphyxiation” one day, I swear.

  • Coyotenose

    “As a Redditor pointed out, getting called scientifically ignorant by Ken Ham is like a blind person telling you you’re ugly”

    Nah, bad analogy. The blind person could be right anyway.

    • Pseudonym

      In the 80s, we used to say it’s like Madonna telling you to dress more appropriately.

  • Conspirator

    One thing I wonder about many of these staunch defenders of Creationism as well as televangelists, do they really believe this?  Or perhaps are they liars, know that they are liars, and just found a good way of making a living off fleecing the gullible?  

    • Andreas Moss

      When it comes to Ken Ham I personally think he is one of those guys who knows evolution is true, but for other reasons thinks creationism is better for kids and people to believe in. So in his mind the ends justifies the means. Just a hunch whenever I listen to the guy. So yes, he’s a liar. Although most of the creationism environment probably is a cult that has a circlejerk effect. They tell eachother that there is no evidence for evolution until its hardwired into them. 

      • Sceptic

        Mind reader or just lying that you can mind read?

      • Drew M.

         I get that vibe from Ray Comfort, but not Ken Ham.

        I think Ham is completely sincere and frankly, that’s far more frightening.

    • Pseudonym

      I think it was Ian Plimer who noted numerous examples of actual fraud and tax evasion within the creationism movement in Queensland (which Ken Ham was a major part of before he left for the US).

      It would be unfair to say “creationists are liars about everything else, so why not creationism too”, because that would be tarring all of them with the same brush. I will say, however, that there’s plenty of precedent.

      What I think is going on is that some of the leaders of the creationism movement are would-be petty tyrants who get off on power, and some are just ignorant and mistaken.  No, I don’t know who falls into which category; I can’t say I’ve paid that much attention. However, those in the former category are more likely to lie to get what they want.

      Having said all that, bear in mind that there are a number of cashed-up lobby groups in the US who have a vested interest in generally discrediting science, and are willing to go out of their way to do so. It’s well documented, for example, that the tobacco industry is behind some climate change denial groups. It wouldn’t surprise me if creationism is part of that landscape.

    • Gsm54321

      I think it’s a fundamental problem that they don’t know what they are talking about. It’s easy for them to attack evolution, because they don’t really know what they are talking about. 

      Don’t ask an evangelist if they believe in evolution, ask if they understand evolution, and then ask them to explain. The problem instantly becomes apparent.

    • Ken Detweiler

      Having worked as a video engineer for two prominent televangelists, they are gullible themselves – at first. Then when the $$$ start rolling in the “marketing” experts take over and it’s a gravy train from that point (there’s a sucker born every minute and they know it). One of them died believing the spiel, the other realized what was going on and turned it into big business. Competed head to head with Ted Turner to build a worldwide TV network subsidized by guess who? You. The American taxpayer. He’s still fleecing the flock.

  • Rich Wilson

    So, starting with your conclusion and then finding someway to make evidence support it, and assuming any evidence that doesn’t must be wrong, is ‘science’.

  • Patterrssonn

    I bet a blind person could tell that your analogy is ugly.

  • george.w

    *wheeze* *cough* *just a minute…*

    OK, stopped laughing long enough to draw comparison. Glen Beck telling Walter Cronkite he didn’t understand broadcast news? If that were historically possible. 

    • Thin-ice

      Or Chuck Norris telling Laurence Olivier he doesn’t know how to act.

    • Thin-ice

      Or Sarah Palin telling Queen Elizabeth she doesn’t understand the British monarchy.

  • Rich Wilson

    I don’t want to fly in something built by chance random processes.  What do you think, all the parts, just lay them out on the runway and they come together or something?

    Christians are not frightened to teach their children about evolution

    No, you’re not afraid to make up some stupid shit, call it evolution, and then hack away at the straw.

    I can’t even think of an analogy for teaching Christianity that incorrectly.

  • ɹǝɯɐןq

    Judging which group is “thinking critically” or “rational” is about the easiest decision anyone will ever make. (Spoiler: 
    it’s always the group who agree with you, unless you were taught to seek the professorial consensus of the day) No need to dig around on wikipedia… assume it’s naively wrong or worse. Corrupted by liberal academics.

    They’re saying on SGU this week that conspiracy theorists can be heard saying approx the same. Apparently the masses are pigheadedly ignoring their compelling explanations or blindly ignorant. And professorial experts no better. Perhaps corrupting on purpose.

    So what is “teaching” and “education” for these groups with their unhealthly level of skepticism towards “Science” (read: academia) if not an epic conspiracy theory set up to bury the compelling INCREDIBLE / NOT CREDIBLE explanations that would –if made widely known– profoundly change the world.

  • Barb Schaarschmidt

    This “historical science” vs “observational science” line that they keep trotting out is very concerning. It’s like when they used to try to get “creationism” taught, but when that was decreed unconstitutional they switched to “creation science”. It seems like they’re just creating a bogus category and throwing everything they believe into that and calling it science. I’m afraid that one might slip through if we’re not careful.

    • Cincinatheist

      Or when they try to break evolution into buckets of micro and macro. Micro happens because we see it but nobody has ever witnessed macro evolution. There’s just evolution, not types of evolution. They have to resort to straw men and fabrications because they are defending fairy tales.

      • Thin-ice

        I would strongly encourage science-believing people, when discussing evoution with creationists, emphasize that there is NO SUCH THING as macro evolution. There are never sudden large anatomical or species transformations. It’s always the accumulation of thousands and millions of gradual changes, in other words, micro evolution. To those Christians who say they believe in micro evolution, then they believe in evolution. Period. They can’t say they don’t believe in macro evolution. It’s not an option. If they don’t believe in evolution, then they can’t believe in micro evolution.

        • Pseudonym

          What you meant to say is correct, but the way you said it is slightly incorrect. There is a useful distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, in that they are fields of study or scientific specialities. Those terms do not, however, refer to distinct phenomena found in nature.

          In science, different phenomena are more or less important as you scale up the problem. In the physics of fluids, surface tension plays a far greater role on the small scale than on the large scale, for example. Saying “I believe in microevolution but not macroevolution” is like saying “I believe in microfluidics but not oceanography”.

  • Kim

    A creationist accusing Bill Nye the Science Guy of not understanding science? LOL

  • RobMcCune

    These creationist responses to Bill Nye just keep getting stupider and stupider, I hope this trend doesn’t continue.

    • Sceptic

      Some creationists are stupid but some are not. Similarly with atheists, many are and a some are not.

      • Sceptic

        The last phrase should have been a few are not.

        • Thorny264

          An Atheist is a variable though, Despite your backhanded insult which I’m not sure if you think you stealthed or just a blatant insult either way telling someone you are a Atheist gives no degree as to how intelligent that person is could be a idiot or a genius however telling someone you are a creationist tells them you reject logic and evidence for magic, old books and fairy tales and rightly so they are an idiot.

        • thorny264

          Also I wouldn’t try to take the intellectual high ground when you believe in magical sky fairies

        • vexorian

          When correcting your post the way you would originally like it (disqus actually allows editing posts, BTW)

          “Some creationists are stupid but some are not. Similarly with atheists, many are and a few are not.”

          It makes you sound so smart.

      • Don Gwinn

        He didn’t say that all creationists are stupid. He said that each new creationist response to Nye’s video is more stupid than the one prior, which was more stupid than the one prior to that, and so on.

        That may or may not be true (he might be estimating or even exaggerating) but it’s certainly plausible based on the fact that Ken Ham’s embarrassment above is the latest in the series.

      • RobMcCune

        Oh, can you link to someone who writes intelligently about creationism?

        • Rich Wilson

          Do ‘theistic evolutionists’ count? (Ken Miller and Francis Collins).

          I guess not.  Even if they think God created life, they at least know that all life shared a common ancestor.

          • RobMcCune

            No, theistic evolution is by all appearances naturalistic evolution but it happens according to god’s plan via mysterious ways. Creationism is god creating everything out of nothing just as it is now, and denies lots of science in the process. 

            To put it another way if stub my toe I think I swung my foot and accidentally hit something.

            A theistic evolutionist agrees, but adds that god had a purpose for it.

            And a creationist thinks I am lying and a leprechaun hit my toe with a tiny sledge hammer.

            • amycas

               I love that analogy.

            • Rich Wilson

              To be fair, the creationists aren’t opposed to the idea that a chair may have popped up in front of your foot via some random chance processes.  

              They just think that in the interest of proper critical thinking, we should also teach the leprechaun theory of toe stubbing.

              • CultOfReason

                 It’s my impression that that would be true for a subset of creationists known as intelligent designers.  For the hardcore creationist, they ARE opposed to the random chair theory because it contradicts a literal interpretation of the bible.

    • RobMcCune

      And it continues… will it never end!

  • James

    What is this “historical science” vs “observational science.” Can someone please explain the difference?

    I’m genuinely interested as to what creationists think. Correct me if I’m wrong here, but going by their definitions, the theories of Galileo and Newton are just a couple ways of explaining gravity, something we’ve always observed. BUT since these theories were only developed in the last few hundred years it is a “historical” way of explaining something that has always existed. Right? There’s historical science for ya!

    • RobMcCune

      My take is he’s trying to make the case that science can’t explain the past. 

      Time goes in time goes out, you can’t explain that!

      • Marc

        Just like the tides!
        -Bill O’Reilly

        • Matt P

           Bread goes in, toast comes out. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that.

          • Don Gwinn

            My toaster has suffered several miscommunications.  It may have the devil in it.

            • James

              I’m sure the Amish would agree with that, Brother Don.

    • Sharon Hypatia

       James,  they have a Baconian view that REAL  science is getting samples of things and doing repeat experiments to observe the results. As one cannot repeat historical events  (like the first cell being formed or the birth & death of a star) this isn’t REAL science. It’s just “guessing” and “speculation”.
      Modern science has a broader concept of observation and experiment. Statistics & probability play a big part. (A simple example, I  cannot tell when any individual will die, but based on statistics and probability I  can predict that everyone on this blog will  probably be dead in 50 -75 years! And how many people, on average, will die in the USA this year.)
      They don’t understand that experiments can be made on parts of a theory and positive results support the theory, even if one cannot test the whole theory.
      Using stars as an example: We cannot bring a star into a  lab or observe it running through its billions of years life cycle.
      But we observe stars are different. We do experiments on earth to see how matter and energy change and behave under the same conditions  of heat and pressure as in the star. We find stars that resemble these conditions. We can conclude that the different stars are actually at different stages of a life cycle. 
      Hovind & Hammy would say “But you actually didn’t see the star get born, evolve and die.  That isn’t real science!”

      • James

        Thanks! Good explanation, Sharon. Now if I can only convince my mother of evolution using this logic, we will be getting somewhere.

  • Marc

    No Ken, you shouldn’t teach kids they’re just animals, UNLESS IT’S TRUE.

    • Sceptic

      Atheists believe they are animals. Non-atheists may or may not. So am I right to conclude that they should be humoured and be treated like what they think they are?

      • Thorny264

        Atheists realise we are animals* Non Atheists may or may not deny it 

      • Don Gwinn

        Sure, go ahead and treat me like an animal. That is, assume that I need oxygen to respire and I have to consume food, being incapable of photosynthesis . . . and that I’m capable of suffering, and . . . well, you get the picture.

        You’re an animal whether you admit to believing it or not, buddy.  That attempt at a snide remark was not typed by a plant or a fungus, and don’t come at me with all those newfangled bacterial kingdoms and domains and stuff these kids are into these days.

      • NickDB

         No we don’t believe we’re animals, we know, that we and everyone other single human on the planet is an animal. It’s the same as knowing that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west, the sky is blue and the moon is not made of cheese.

        If you don’t think you’re an animal it’s because you’re an idiot.

        • Paul Harris

          You might want to think twice about using the sun rising in the east and setting in the west example. The fact is that it rarely does.  Depending on where you are on the earth, it will rise somewhere north or south of east and set somewhere north or south of west most of the time. The amount of variation through the year depends on how far from the equator you are. If you live just outside the arctic circle, for example, on the summer solstice it will rise just east of north, arc around the sky and set just west of north, to rise again minutes later. On the winter solstice at the same location, it will rise just east of south and set a few minutes later just west of south.
          But otherwise I agree – if someone doesn’t think they are an animal then they are an idiot (and still an animal).

          • NickDB

            OK, point taken, for illustrative purposes I think it served it’s point. 

        • Antinomian

          Or a fungus..

        • RSmith

          Right. Except the sun really doesn’t “set” now does it? While it is common to say that, in reality it’s just an appearance. And I just am so sure that you realize the sky really isn’t blue at all, but rather colorless. It’s the scattering of the energy spectrum from the sun through the atmosphere that gives the appearance of blue… Sometimes. I guess at least you got the cheese part correct. I am a scientist. And a believer in creation. And I believe evolution has been and is taking place. I just don’t believe it provides the answers to the origin of all species from one common source. So I guess that makes me an idiot. And I’m just fine that you think that.

      • Glasofruix

        And the Sun is a star and all stars are Suns, we’re talking about obvious here mr. NotSoSmartypants.

      • Thackerie

         If you’re not an animal, that leaves two choices — vegetable or mineral. Which are you?

        • vexorian

           Thackerie: Sceptic could also be a bacteria or fungus.

          • Rich Wilson


    • Ben

      what if it’s not true

    • Ben

      I realize we are animals, my bad…what i meant was what if evolution is false?

  • NewDawn2006

    Doesn’t “Bill Nye the *SCIENCE GUY*” kind of speak for itself? As does “Ken Ham founder of Creation Museum”…

  • David Pearce

    Of course science and engineering are related!

    “Engineering is merely the slow younger brother of physics” – Dr Sheldon Cooper

    • Michael

      The general public, unfortunately, doesn’t know or care what engineering is all about and what engineers do, even though everyone uses the results of engineering every day. Without engineers, we would literally be living like cave people, with the life expectancy of 100 years ago – there would be no sanitary water, drugs, medical technology such as MRI, CAT, laser surgery, computers, cars, airplanes, or much of anything else. Engineers make the results of pure science safe, practical, and economical. They are the most important people in a society, because without engineers nothing would exist beyond the aforementioned cave society – Michael, Ph.D., P.E., Consulting Engineer

      • C Peterson

        Humans are, above all, engineers. It is what primarily distinguishes us from other animals. It is what made us the species we are today. Everything we do- even unexpected things like literature, art, and music are expressions of our intrinsic engineering ability and drive.

        Scientists provide the basic knowledge that makes engineering the highly efficient discipline it is today. Without science, engineering would be a slow, painful process. And engineering provides science with many of the tools it requires to advance knowledge. It’s a beautiful symbiosis.

        • Sceptic

          The question is not if man are engineers and the symbiosis between mathematics, science, music and art. The question is whether there is an invisible hand conducting the symphony of the universe. Some creationists like some atheists have weird logic but it should not detract from the central issue of whether the symbiosis is directed or came about by pure chance.

          • C Peterson

            I certainly don’t question whether there is an “invisible hand” involved, unless you consider that a reference to simple laws of nature.

            The likelihood of intelligent direction is so far down my list of questions that it doesn’t merit discussion. Alien abductions are more likely.

    • Drew M.

      I don’t trust any engineer who watches BBT. You probably like Mythbusters too, don’t you?

      A Mechanical Engineer

      Edit: ;)

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    Wow, the audacity. He actually claims that Christians are not indoctrinating their kids? Creationists are fine with teaching evolution to their kids because they completely ignore the evidence and don’t understand the science. 

  • NogahdzNoughmasters

    Haa! HAA!! Project much? Haa! haahaa..hahm..[sobs]

  • Kevin_Of_Bangor

    Was anyone able to watch the entire video? I was not.

    • Drew M.

       Made it to 2:40.

    • B_R_Deadite99

      I couldn’t even bring myself to start it.

  • Taylor Michael Grin

    Is it just me, or is there an unusually high population of prominent (or highly visible) Australian/New Zealander creationists? Or is it just confirmation bias? Hmm, probably confirmation bias.

    • Matthew Baker

       Well they tend to get laughed out of  the Land Down Under so they head on here to the States where their brand of mountebank chicanery is not only embraced but endorsed. Unfortunately they are of the type that looks foolish to anyone outside the creationist set.  A group willing to pay top dollar to be lied to.

    • Edward

       Speaking as a New Zealander living in Australia – it’s the vocal minority effect amplified. There’s a lot of cultural Christians here, but the vast majority of generation X and younger are effective atheists and/or agnostic, and being an actual church go-er is seen as being a bit weird. Being a creationist is generally seen as being a complete fruitcake and a subject for ridicule. Thus, instead of simply fading into the background as the might in a more religious country, creationists go the USA where they have more support.

      I see Matthew Baker beat me to the explanation.

    • Timmykuns

      Regardless, I still want to apologise for Ken Ham, I was dumbfounded when I learnt he was from Australia. To think that my country could produce a person so scientifically  illiterate makes me feel terrible. Even if he has produced some of the greatest pieces of comedy the world has seen (re. creation museum).

      • NickDB

         He’s from Oz??????

        AWESOME!!! At least the next time the Springboks loose to you guys I can feel smug in the knowledge that you still have Ken Ham. (Just kidding)

        Seriously though, sporting rivalry aside I’m quite shocked that he’s an Aussie, you blokes are fairly decent.

    • ReadsInTrees

      To me, Australia and New Zealand should be the worst place ever for creationists. What amazing examples of evolution there are on those two islands! I mean, look at the platypus and the way it seems to “bridge” the space between mammals and reptiles. Look at how New Zealand’s birds evolved without any mammals on the island (until humans came along and ruined it).  These two islands are just great examples to show how geographical divides create life that is vastly different from life forms on other continents…

    • Paul Harris

      I’ve lived in NSW, WA, NT and now Queensland and had never seen a creationist (as far as I knew) until a couple of years ago, in Katherine of all places. I’d lived there a few years and it was only just before I left that I heard a small group of creationists in a local cafe, laughing about how Richard Dawkins had supposedly been stumped for an answer to a creationist question on a TV show the previous evening. It came as quite a shock to find we had creationists in our midst, and kind of makes me glad that I don’t live in Katherine any more.
      But we emigrated to Australia when I was a kid and I’ve spent 37 years here and that was the only group of creationists I ever found.
      I suspect that the few that you hear about are more prominent precisely because most Australians see them as the lunatic fringe and we all enjoy a good laugh.

  • B_R_Deadite99

    Creationists acting like retards, film at five. Really, there’s nothing new here. I’m sure fundy parents have spent years making sure their precious lambs never see  anything on TV that champions critical thinking, or even worse, promotes godless Darwinism. Bill Nye has been talking about how science works, as well as evolution, for years, so it only makes sense that he would come under fire sooner or later.

    IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, and all that.

  • TGAP Dad

    I would so like to see this turn into a takedown a’la Schlafly vs. Lenski!
    (In case you’ve been living on Mars for the past four years, start here:

    • B_R_Deadite99

       Funny how none of the creationists or IDers saying evolution has no proof ever mentions the Lenski Experiment. I wonder why…? ;)

  • Mike Laing

    I read on Mind Hacks, or somewhere recently, an explanation of how these people can be so deluded as to really believe they are the logical ones. Funny thing was that this only happened with religion(and maybe politics, I can’t remember) and these people can be quite rational in the rest of everyday life. I may be confusing two studies as one, but I think that ultra conservatives, and devout believers, use a different area of their brain, as opposed to the normal, as understood right now, areas and processes that are usual for logical thinking.

    So, my vote is that he  earnestly believes he is obviously right, and can’t understand how atheists can be so frustratingly irrational. It’s a brain incongruity, oh what’s the point  – he’s stupid, and proud of it!

  • jose

    He’s just speaking to the chorus. He’s a charismatic leader and this is an unifying video for the people who follow his guidance. Humor (ridicule) makes you dismiss something without really thinking about it, thus sparing yourself of the worry that Nye might have a point; and the “agenda” accusations establish Nye as an enemy. And nothing unites people like a common enemy.

    • Glasofruix

      How can he be charismatic with that kind of face and the blatant idiocy pouring out of every orifice on it?

      • jose

        We are very forgiving when we want to agree with something or someone.

  • Baby_Raptor

    If there WAS a god, hypocrisy like Ham’s would get people killed via lightning strike. 

  • Tez Skanza

    I’m still trying to grasp whether this guys is real, or acting.  Really, I’m trying to look at this from neutral – but the things Mr. Ham is saying just. Don’t. Make. Sense.

    I would love to speak to him in person and challenge virtually everything he has stated in the video…

  • Guest

    I can’t believe he said he would not fly in a plane made by and ‘evolutionist’. I would not want to fly in a plane that was created by a mythical being and kept aloft only by praying.

    • amycas

       Plus, I’m pretty sure biologists aren’t in charge of building airplanes. Isn’t that a job for engineers, physicists and such?

      • Daniel Sachse

        Preeeeetty sure that most engineers, and definitely most physicists are “evolutionists”. It’s not their line of work, but I guarantee you that you’ll find very few creationists among them.

    • NickDB

       Well he’s probably done that already, there is a fair chance that some who believed in evolution had a hand in building a plane’s he’s being on already.

      But hopefully we can get him to stop using anything related to Science.

  • Marco

    The real problem here is that the media feels that Creationists deserve rebuttal time, therefore giving them exactly what they want. The controversy.

    I have to give it to those guys, their controversy strategy is brilliant. It paints truth and science into a corner where whatever we do or say, we create more media attention for these guys.

    And the crowd they pander to are morons like the one that commented today on a CNN article on the Nye video saying “I’ll believe evolution when a guy with callouses on his feet from walking a lot shoeless has children with callouses as well” (or some shit like that).

    What do you tell these people? How do you teach them reality without calling them names in the process? 

    I think we may have to rethink our approach and find some way to teach critical thinking without riling up the religious. 
    For me it’s more important that kids grow up with the skills to question their world than feed him information that may confuse them and give these a$$holes the chance to preach their ignorance. 

    I am starting to think that we may want to finance and promote bible studies. Think about it. We let them teach it, they will have the upper hand and can teach it any way they want. If we get to teach it, we can use it to help develop the student’s own critical thinking skills. 

    If nothing else, I’d love to see their faces when they get wind of it :)

  • wmdkitty


    *deep breaths*

    Oh. Wow. The stupid burns bright with that one.

  • Gordon Duffy

    Ken Ham describes someone with an agenda, who does not understand science, trying to indoctrinate kids. He just does not realise he is talking about himself. 

  • Tom

    Does this mean that these idiots have finally decided we weren’t buying the intellectually bankrupt I.D. version of creationism so they’re just going back to biblical literalism?

  • Pollracker

    Bill Nye doesn’t understand science what a joke. When I was a child I learned many things from great men like bill nye and mister rogers they gave me the first vision of how the world truely worked. Worked outside the walls of my house I mean. I find science awesome and a portion of that is owed to bill nye. Bill Nye did not however turn me into an atheist I become an atheist after going to a christian school and thinking criticly about their beliefs. I gained knowledge of the truth behind the theory of evolution from being told it was false with no real proof that it was and than looking it up and studing for my self. Bill Nye simply helped me veiw the world as amazing christianity and creationism made me an atheist.

  • Gus Snarp

    It’s not like a blind person telling you you’re ugly. After all, a blind person could listen to that clip and tell you that Ken Ham is ugly. The problem is that there’s no analogy more powerful than the statement itself, Ken Ham calling you scientifically ignorant is like…Ken Ham calling you scientifically ignorant.


    Teach the problems with Evolution? How about teaching the problems with the ridiculous biblical creation fable?

  • Sue Blue

    When Ken Ham speaks, brain cells die.

  • MariaO

    Among all the hilarious mistakes there was actually an anti-Xian statement too:

    (If god created) “we can trust the laws of nature.”

    He obviously does not realise that if we can trust the laws of nature, then miracles and other godly interventions are impossible. I doubt he belongs to a church that does not beleive in such things. Therefore, he is committing blasphemy to his own beliefs. He should fear the wrath of his god!

  • DougI

     sci·ence   [sahy-uhns] Show IPA
    noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
    2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
    3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
    4. systematized knowledge in general.
    5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

    At least Bill Nye can read a dictionary.

  • Sharon Hypatia

    What is really ugly about Ham and his ilk is that they are creating a lie that the people who are actually doing the science are “fake scientists” whereas those who support creation/religious based science are “real scientists”. With all the homeschooling and religious schools, this is creating a whole class of  children who honestly think that most scientists are creationists and the ones who are not are just a “few godless cranks”.
    And, notice how he brought in all the dog whistle memes – godless humanists,   the true meaning of marriage, the source of morality – so any religious person who might just stop and say “Yes, but I like science.” will be reminded which side they should be on.
    Damn, I hate this guy!

    • kaydenpat

      Yes, the “we Christians have morals” and non-Christians are evil and don’t know right from wrong.  Christian supremacist.

  • nakedanthropologist

    Oh jesus-tap-dancing-christ you just made my day Hermant! Kevin Ham: “You don’t understand science like I do!  Jesus ate dinosaur meat and loved it!  Take that!”  LOL!  I know I’m not supposed to laugh at idiocy, but damn!

  • Neuron

    “Wow, Ken Ham’s gotten old.” That is literally the only thing I could come up with that wasn’t inarticulate rage.

  • Rich Wilson

    Krauss on ‘the museum’

  • John Prophet

    This guy is either lying or really doesn’t think very hard.  I vacillate between both answers.  Maybe it’s a bit of both?

  • Gunstargreen

    There needs to be a 30 minute reply from Bill Nye to these creation museum videos where he just laughs hysterically or tries to catch his breath from laughing the whole time.

    • kaydenpat


      I think Nye is too concerned that creationism is being taught in public schools to laugh.

  • Steve

    I think there are some evangelists out there who are a little dulled in terms of their view of science. But I don’t think that’s the case here. I’m not sure most of the people on this thread have really looked into evolution themselves. We’re taught the basic science of microevolution, and then we’re told that macroevolution is true as well. The difference between the two is concepts is night and day. I’m not trying to insult anybody’s intelligence. I don’t care how we got here. I just think it’s honestly ridiculous how much creationists get attacked. I mean, why is everybody so worked up against them? What’s at stake?

    • Edward

      I can’t speak for everyone else here, but when I was a Christian, a bunch of people at church had me up about my lack of creationist beliefs. I did the research, because frankly, it was a big deal to disagree about it, but in the end, it was pretty clear that the evolution supporters knew what they were talking about, and the creationists were starting from a conclusion and working backwards, ignoring or butchering data to fit their conclusions. I failed to find any arguments by said creationists that weren’t answered, but the reverse, where creationists could not respond to a request for an explanation by evolution supporters happend all the time.

      Other people here have already discussed the micro vs macro bit, so I’m going to paraphrase – there’s no difference, just a matter of time.

      Why is this important? Because science, logic, maths, and their siblings technology and engineering are the only reason many of us exist today. I would probably be dead without the medical treatment provided as the results of science (non-invasive ablative procedure for WPW syndrome for the medics here). We would not be having this conversation if it were not for the results of research and innovation into quantum mechanics and transistors. Our ability to feed billions is the direct result of our understanding of  biology from the study of evolution. Without any amount of hyberbole, our entire civilisation exists only because science has pushed back the boundaries of ignorance.

      If we allow this foolishness to flourish, if we stop questioning, stop pushing, stop demanding the truth, and instead tell people that it’s ok for them to extort their mythology as truth just because science makes them uncomfortable, them we may as well just go back to living in caves – because once we stop demanding the truth, that is where we are inevitably headed.

    • Rich Wilson

      and then we’re told that macroevolution is true as well

      That’s very unfortunate.  And that’s exactly what’s at stake.  Fear of creationists, and an improper understanding of evolution, has caused many high school teachers to gloss over evolution, or skip it, or teach it improperly themselves.  Your own doubts are the best example of what’s wrong.  Evolution doesn’t have to be something that you just blindly accept.  There’s abundant fascinating evidence, but creationists have drummed up such a false controversy, that they have succeeded in preventing evolution from being taught well in most schools.

  • Graeme Harkness

    “I hope he did not apply his evolutionary principles to any of Boeing’s airplanes”

    Actually, a quick google search seems to show that Boeing used software called “EnGENEous”.  It uses a genetic algorithm to come up with the best shape for the engine blades!So, it appears that “evolutionary principles” can be pretty good for designing the planes that we ALL fly in!

    • Rich Wilson

      Oh good point!  Wonder if Ken has ever heard of “Simulated Annealing”

      • Adam Patrick

        But that’s not in the Bible so it must not be true.

        • Richard Thomas

          I’m sure if we ask Ray Comfort he’ll find it in the bible for us…

  • Felix


  • kaydenpat

    Wow.  I cannot believe Ham went there.  Speechless.

  • Serebyani

    wow,, I knew this guy was loopy, but damn, he is delusional too.  this is what happens when we can not fund our insane asylums, people like this walk the street. 

  • Thinkforyourself1

    There seem to be many more people who believe the religion of evolution than otherwise on this site.  I doubt any of actually watched Dr. Ham’s video. 

    • Smoberg2003

      any of them*

    • Ann Onymous

      You go on an atheist blog and are surprised that its denizens don’t buy into the religious doctrine of creationism?
      And if evolution is a religion, so’s gravity. And algebra.


    Says Bill Nye doesn’t understand science. Oh Ken you should become a stand up comedian

    • Richard Thomas

      Yeah, but then he would think he has a leg to stand on and say Bill Nye isn’t FUNNY as well. That would just be too much irony for the universe to contain.

  • Devon Gronka

    Lol.  So tell me, Mr. Ham, how many patents do you hold?  How many awards have you won?  How long have you worked as an engineer for companies that are on the cutting edge of technology?  how many peer-reviewed articles do you have published?

  • Ben

    “Creationist parents are not afraid to teach Evolution” …..I agree. Why don’t we teach both sides of the coin. It’s annoying scientists promote an agenda telling kids what to think about. 

    • Ann Onymous

      Because one side of the coin is made of good, sturdy, reasonable, logical metal, and the other side is made of Jell-O. Or crepe paper. They’re not at all similar, and they don’t belong on the same coin.
      Scientists tell kids what to think? No. Scientists present the best explanation they can find. It’s Christians who tell kids that any doubt of what they’re told will send them to Everlasting Torture Land. It’s Christians who homeschool their kids, partly to shield them from learning about evolution. Science is about learning and discovery, and beyond that it has no agenda.

      • Ben

        And you so sure about this huh? It’s rather absurd to see macroevolution as reasonable when we are dealing with how complex the cell, DNA, etc. are. I would say that Intelligent Design is rather logical in it’s ideas. You can call it whatever you want, but to look at the evidence that science gives and to come up with an idea that life formed via abiogenesis from a comet that has amino acids present where all these amino acids formed proteins then somehow came together to form life and we evolved, even with the complexity of the brain, not to mention the complexities of the mind that do include immaterial and cannot be made from chemicals if you ask me, logic isn’t on the evolutionist’s side

        • Ann Onymous

          Theories of abiogenesis are not part of the theory of evolution. They are different things, different concepts, and if you’re going to attack them you’ll have to do so separately. (The same goes for the Big Bang Theory.)
          Do you believe that organisms reproduce?
          Do you believe that offspring are not always the same as the parent? That there are variations?
          Do you believe that organisms with unsuitable traits (a slow cheetah, say) are less likely to survive and breed?
          That’s evolution in a nutshell. Why would the complexity of the biological structures involved harm it? Complexity is the wonder of evolution, that we develop and become more and more fit for our environment/ situation over vast periods of time. It’s an extraordinarily slow process, but one that yields great results.
          “the complexities of the mind that do include immaterial and cannot be made from chemicals”

          Also, before you come down here and attack evolution, before you claim that evolution and ID/creationism are “2 sides of the same coin”, before you confuse evolution with abiogenesis: please find a high-school science textbook and read the bits on evolution, preferably without a video from Answers in Genesis playing in the background.

          • Ben

            Let’s first of all approach this with humility. I for one am not one to attack evolution. Evolution is great, i believe it to an extent. I also am a full believer in the Big Bang Theory.There isn’t one new thing you have explained to me, but that’s okay, because i enjoy talking about this subject. Evolution and Abiogenesis are different theories, i’m well aware, however, most scientists have the same presupposition when dealing with these two theories and that is the theory of naturalism. You cannot have evolution if you don’t have life first. My issue is not evolution. My issue is naturaliism which states that life came about by random chance without any help or guidance from anything. Truth be told, the philosophy breaks down and if true, there is no point to life. I’m sure you have some idea in your head that Christianity has no business in the logical realm ( assumption; maybe i’m wrong) but with all the theological issues and arguments over the centuries, if one looks at them, they will see there is a bit more to this than they realize. When i was talking about the complexities of the mind, obviously we differ on the mind and the brain. You probably believe they are one in the same, i think of the brain as material and the mind as immaterial. Why? The self is not a part of the brain in my opinion. All of your emotions, reasoning, while it can be scientifically seen on a screen with reactions in the brain, one cannot see, read or know what is going on inside the mind. I don’t think it is possible to read the mind, the mind is not something in my opinion that can be created by natural means. I am not so sure the cell, and DNA are able to be created by natural means either. If you look at the philosophy of naturalism, again, from my standpoint, the philosophy sort of breaks down.

            “If there is no God, then man and the universe are doomed. Like prisoners condemned to death, we await our unavoidable execution. There is no God, and there is no immortality. And what is the consequence of this? It means that life itself is absurd. It means that the life we have is without ultimate significance, value, or purpose.”-William Lane Craig

            In other words, Naturalism is very deterministic. We will all die in naturalism, there is no objective purpose, we are all just properties of an accident that ultimately doesn’t matter. You can make your own purpose in life, but to those people who are less fortunate, there life is entirely purposeless. Not too mention, in a naturalistic philosophy, there is no objective morality. Yes, i realize that you probably don’t agree with objective morals. I do however, and it is simply because if there is moral relativism, then you can’t believe in evil. If you hold your morals and i hold mine, then moral judgments cannot be made. If you are a moral relativist and i kill someone, how can you object to that being wrong. My morals were mine and mine alone, therefore i’m right because i have my morals. Moral judgments can only be made as a part of an objective moral standard. In Naturalism, there is no objective morality, there is no evil, there is no good, there is just what it is ( survival of the fittest) Look at Frederich Neitzche, probably one of the few Atheists that understood the philosophy of naturalism. I’m not sure your views on each of these things, am i’m well aware there are different viewpoints, but i agree with some of the science, yet disagree where it takes you. Not to mention, whoever said that any of us had the knowledge of the origins of the universe. The best anyone can do is guess, so i would say we should all have a little bit of humility in this, it will never be set in stone for the pure fact that we are only guessing what could’ve happened. Sure, there is evidence, but sometimes the evidence can be misleading. I respect you for your viewpoint, but i do disagree.

            Also, when confronting the Big Bang Theory, i told you, i don’t have a problem, and it’s because i don’t. Science is a different explanation than God. Science is how the universe works. God would be why it works.
            WHy is there something rather than nothing? I fight for this point a little more than anything else

            • Ann Onymous

              That comment was 2 screens’ worth of text. I really don’t want to swamp the rest of the comments, so if we’re going to have this argument, can we have it somewhere else?

              • Ben

                I have no problem with that. If you want to respond to me, do so another way i guess, i attached this to my google plus account, i think. If not, Peace

  • Icon

    Lets all pat each other on the back and discount God because
    we are allllllllllllllllllllll so SMRT.
    All the comments are the same jibberish by people who assume
    Christians are backwards. Hardly.

    • Ann Onymous

      Is this constructive somehow? Because if it is, I can’t really see it through the contempt oozing from its every letter.

    • Richard Thomas

      (citation needed)

      • Ben

        No citation is needed…He simply gave his opinion. A Citation is needed when dealing with facts, quotes, anything that isn’t his material. If you want a few sources on figuring out Christians are in fact logical thinkers and intellectuals, here are a few: William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, John C. Lennox, Norman Geisler, Frank Turek, Wayne Grudem, Lee Strobel, and many more