Ken Ham is easily triggered

A few months ago, I wrote a short post forwarding information that Daniel Phelps had sent to me. Answers in Genesis is shrinking, with declining attendance at his dismal little theme park. Furthermore, more of the labor of writing for their website is falling on Ken Ham’s shoulders, which is peculiar given that he’s getting pretty old and ought to be thinking of the succession — as someone of roughly that age, I can say that we ought to be planning our retirement and thinking of fun and relaxation in our sunset years (call me, Ken, we can plan a retirement party!) But no, Bodie Hodge has sailed away, and Martyn Iles lost little time bailing out. Recently, their “paleontologist”, Gabriela Hynes, jumped ship abruptly, leaving AiG for ICR. The Ark is looking a bit leaky and wobbly, as Phelps has documented, and there must be all kinds of drama behind the scenes.

Ken Ham completely ignored the meat of my post and instead wrote a long entry obsessing over one thing I said. He quoted my final paragraph and didn’t bother to link to it, which is unsurprising. He never links to his critics. I wrote,

That’s a problem with authoritarian cults. They are ruled for life by unpleasant, weird people who alienate everyone around them, and maybe instill in them the ambition to be in charge on their own. I hope I outlive Ken Ham, because I’d really like to see the chaos that will follow on his death.

We’re already seeing hints of the chaos, because Ken is an unpleasant, weird person, and it will get worse if he dies. I think that fact makes him uncomfortable.

Instead of addressing the uneasy state of his legacy and discussing the stability of AiG, Ken was more concerned with my mention of our mortality and my hope to outlive him, so he fulminates at me and fires a bunch of Bible verses at me.

As we know, God’s Word states that,

For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die. (Ecclesiastes 3:1–2)

So when any one of us dies is not up to what some atheist professor wants. God is in control of both Myers’ life and ours.

I disagree. God has nothing to do with it. Genetics and lifestyle and chance are what will bring us both down, eventually. I do agree that I will not have anything to do with Ken Ham’s inevitable death.

But this pagan university professor, who has continually blasphemed and mocked God and Christians, needs to wake up and take note of God’s warning:

And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment. (Hebrews 9:27 LSB)

And if Myers continues in his willing ignorance and rebellion against God, he will suffer a second death after the first death:

But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and sexually immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. (Revelation 21:8 LSB)

Cowardly? Not particularly. Not especially brave, either.

Unbelieving? Yes! Score one point for ol’ Ken.

Abominable? I get along fine with most people. Ken has the prerogative to find me personally loathsome, if he’d like.

Murderer? Nope, never have.

Sexually immoral? I’m sorry, I’m more sexually conventional and always have been.

Sorcerer? Very cool. I wish, but no.

Idolater? I worship no one or no thing. Another miss.

Liar? I won’t lie and say I’ve never lied, but it’s not a particularly prominent feature of my personality.

But Ken…are you planning to gloat about your violent god setting me on fire? That’s not very nice.

I would ask us to all pray for P.Z. Myers as he is well on his way to a Christless eternity. He is 68 years old (younger than me), but God could end his earthly life at any second.

We all live in a Christless universe, so that threat has no muscle behind it at all. I agree that any of us could die at any second, but it won’t be at the hand of Ham’s impotent, faceless, invisible god.

Hey Ken: rather than raging at me with your imprecatory Bible quoting, maybe address the issues I brought up: is your throne listing uneasily? Are you struggling with an internal mutiny?

We get prizes?

Answers in Genesis has some peculiar ideas about how science is done.

This fool says you get a prize if you say the Earth is 30 billion years old, and that you get another prize if you say the Earth is 60 billion years old, but that it’s not fair that he doesn’t get a prize for saying the Earth is a few thousand years old because…creationist math is closer to 30 billion than 60 billion is? What? That’s not how anything works. There aren’t prizes for reciting numbers, this is not Numberwang. You have to provide evidence for your measurement.

Also, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

By the way, I am 178 cm tall, or 5 feet 10 inches tall. You should get prizes for announcing that I am 6 feet tall, and more prizes as my height escalates by acclamation to NBA values and beyond. You get no prizes for declaring that I’m 178 microns tall. And don’t you dare bring out a tape measure.

I can’t compete with that!

Ken Ham is going to be at a benefit dinner. If you want to join him, you’ll have to pay.

$30,000 to sit at a trough with that pig-ignorant liar and fraud Ken Ham? To benefit a ghastly Christian school that promotes ignorance to the children of rich dopes? Jesus, I’m in the wrong business.

I have a counter-offer. Come to Morris, Minnesota and we can have a hearty Midwestern breakfast at Don’s Cafe. I’ll pay since you have to go to all the trouble of getting here. We’ll have a pleasant and interesting conversation, and maybe afterwards I can take you on a tour of a real college, the University of Minnesota Morris.

That’s the best deal I’ve got. I’ll also apologize for the fact that the USA has become the Upside-Down.

Drop me an email and let me know when you’re coming down.

Waiting for another creepy old man to die

Daniel Phelps, who tracks attendance at Ken Ham’s cheesy roadside attractions in Kentucky, tells me that they’re in decline.

According to my monthly Kentucky Open Records Act (KORA) request, December Ark ticket sales were the lowest ever (with the exception of 2020 – during the Covid pandemic). In December 2025, the Ark sold 35,223 tickets, about 4,000 less than December of 2024. Of course, these ticket sales numbers don’t include lifetime pass members or children under 10. My summary of all available ticket sales numbers can be found below.

The December ticket sales number means that the Ark sold 652,342 tickets in 2025. These numbers indicate that the Ark will never come close to the 1.4 to 2.2 million attendees per year projected when the Ark was begging/shaking down Grant County, Williamstown, and Kentucky Tourism for perks including 100 acres of land for $2, $200K cash, reduced taxes, a $62 million bond, and $1.825 million dollars/year in sales tax rebates.

Because of massive donations, AiG and its shell companies are not in danger of collapse. They, however, aren’t doing as good as in previous years.

Yeah, no likelihood of imminent demise, unfortunately — I’m sure the leadership is living comfortably for the duration, and has no major concerns for the future, but they’re in a cult that demands the conversion of everyone in the country (the world!) to their weird apocalyptic doomsday religion. They must be hoping for some magical miracle, and it isn’t happening right now.

Perhaps of greater concern is that their cult of personality is led by a personality that isn’t propagating.

If you look at AiG’s website https://answersingenesis.org, more and more of the content is exclusively coming from Ken Ham himself. Most notably, no one appears to be a replacement for Mr. Ham if he ever retires. His onetime appointed successor, Martyn Iles somehow ended his employment with AiG and returned to Australia to form his own conservative ministry. There have been no official reasons given for this departure by either AiG or Martyn Iles himself (if you know, let us hear about it).

That’s a problem with authoritarian cults. They are ruled for life by unpleasant, weird people who alienate everyone around them, and maybe instill in them the ambition to be in charge on their own. I hope I outlive Ken Ham, because I’d really like to see the chaos that will follow on his death.

Why 99% of scientists believe in evolution

The answer is a lot simpler than Nathaniel Jeanson thinks. It’s because creationism is bullshit.

The gentleman to the left is Nathaniel Jeanson, a guy who went to all the trouble of getting a PhD from Harvard, only to use his diploma to lend some authority to his young earth creationist beliefs. He’s not a serious person. He is employed by Answers in Genesis, and made a short video to answer the question, “Why 99% of Scientists Believe in Evolution”. He’s going to fail.

Why work so hard to keep creation science out?

We don’t. Creation science is so patently silly that we don’t have to work very hard at all to keep it out of our classrooms. It’s also so trivial that…what would we do? A single semester is 15 weeks long, with about 45 hours of lecture time. There isn’t enough substance in creationism to fill that amount of time, while evolution is so data- and concept rich that we can’t cover it adequately in a multi-year program.

The answer is simple. Evolutionists must believe that scientists become evolutionists if that’s what they’re taught.

Well, yes. We teach students to evaluate the evidence and see the utility of sound, testable explanations, and then when we teach them about evolution, they should accept it. We also think that if you’re properly taught about calculus or chemistry, they should accept mathematics or chemistry.

What is Jeanson’s problem here? Does he think it’s abnormal that students can learn?

I see no other explanation for the evolutionists’ behavior. Evolutionists must believe with all their heart that students adopt the position that they’re taught.

What behavior? I teach the subject I’m trained to teach, and that I have long experience in studying. What other explanation does he need?

As for the idea that students adopt the position they’re taught…he’s clearly never been a teacher. Students resist learning new ideas. Teaching is hard work on both the instructor’s side and the students’ side, and no, we don’t expect students to accept as fact everything we tell them. They have to think it through critically, and test ideas against the evidence.

In short, there is a simple explanation for why 99% of scientists reject my young earth creation position in favor of evolution. It’s because evolution is all they’re ever taught.

That claim falls with a loud clunk. A simpler explanation: we reject your young earth creationism because it’s bogus and unsupported by any credible evidence.

It’s also not true that evolution is all they’re taught. Most of my students were brought up Christian, have read at least bits and piece of the Bible, are soaking in a credulous culture where Noah’s Ark, for instance, is a familiar meme. Most scientists are entirely familiar with the mythology common in their society, and we’ve heard it all. It just doesn’t hold up to any critical scrutiny.

Is this all you’ve got, Nathaniel? Accusing everyone who disagrees with you of having been indoctrinated into a dogma, while you yourself are employed at a business that demands unquestioning obedience to a statement of faith?

It’s a pit of disease as well as ignorance

Nobody should be surprised by this:

Today (1/1/26) the Kentucky Department for Public Health announced that an unvaccinated, out-of-state individual with measles visited the Ark Encounter in Williamstown, Kentucky, on December 29, 2025. Local and regional health departments are scrambling to warn and inform the public.

It’s only what should be expected, given Ken Ham’s beliefs about disease prevention.

During the Covid pandemic and lockdown, Ken Ham railed against mask mandates, was involved in lawsuits against OSHA vaccine requirements and was ambivalent about vaccines. When writing about vaccine mandates and Covid lockdowns, Mr. Ham said:

Certainly, people died from the virus, although I think we are all confused at what the actual statistics are. People die every day from all sorts of diseases. But once a person dies, God’s Word tells us they will spend eternity in heaven or hell. So how essential is the church, the body of Christ (of which AiG is a part of), for people’s well-being? It is vital.

Once again, I’m wishing I believed in Hell…but only for Christians like Ken Ham.

Ken Ham makes an admission

Daniel Phelps has been tracking attendance at Ken Ham’s roadside attraction for many years, and as you might expect, it’s a highly variable number, but in general it’s had a slight downward trend. This is unsurprising, because it’s not a particularly interesting place, since it’s promoting a tired old set of myths and there are no dramatic changes to get the people’s attention. There can’t be — the whole point of Answers in Genesis is that the facts have all been laid out in a centuries-old Bible, and anything mere men might propose as novel is wrong. They have to keep churning out pointless new attractions to keep their audience satisfied.

The decline has become so noticeable that even Ken Ham is compelled to acknowledge it.

As you have likely seen, travel and tourism have been down across the nation this year due to previous years’ economic impact. And as the Bible reminds us, “It is the same for all. There is one fate for the righteous and for the wicked; for the good, for the clean and for the unclean; for the man who offers a sacrifice and for the one who does not sacrifice. As the good man is, so is the sinner; as the swearer is, so is the one who is afraid to swear. This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that there is one fate for all.” (Ecclesiastes 9:2–3 LSB)

And so yes, the Ark Encounter and Creation Museum have been affected too. Because summer is our peak season, we use that time to put away funds to enable us to get through the slower times of winter (January–April). But this year, we weren’t able to do that to the degree we have in the past. Now, the good news is many experts are predicting things will get back closer to “normal” next year, and we are seeing improvements as we approach the end of the year.

Oh, gosh, the downturn in attendance is Biden’s fault, which is pure nonsense. The tourism industry will tell you that the election of Trump was a real shock to their business. I wouldn’t expect it to bounce back next year — I think we’re sliding into a pit of failure that can’t improve as long as the demented idiot at the top is batting the economy back and forth.

AiG is making changes in response. They’re selling off a quarter share in their company jet. We’re all tightening our belts! They’re also begging even harder for donations, with a $20 million fundraising goal. There are still plenty of gullible people in the country, and maybe his hope is that when Trump demolishes the educational system our population of morons, his people, will rise.

They will always have an excuse.

I missed the TCCSA debate until now. Nothing was lost.

A while back, I mentioned that the Twin Cities Creation Science Association was doing an online creation/evolution debate on the 26th and that maybe I’d tune in and see what they had to say. I didn’t. I knew the creationist, Brian Lauer, would natter on about the kinds of arguments Kent Hovind makes, and that he’d misrepresent the science, and that he’d do nothing but trot out oft-refuted nonsense, and I decided to wait until today, when I could play it back at a faster speed and skip over the stupid bits, of which there were many.

Lauer turned out to be worse than I thought. He’s an acolyte of Walt Brown’s hydroplate theory, the idea the “fountains of the deep” blasted massive amounts of material during the flood that shot out into space, so when scientists find amino acids in meteorites, that’s because they all originated on Earth, and were subsequently launched skyward during the flood catastrophe. There isn’t a single crackpot explanation some fringe doofus could mention that Lauer wouldn’t bring out in the debate…and then he’d cherry-pick headlines from scientific sources to show that science was in the Bible.

Mark Reid, his opponent, was batting these claims down as fast as Lauer would make them, but nothing was penetrating the creationist’s smug smirk. I was falling asleep when, surprisingly, my name was brought up, at about the 1:36:00 minute.

Oh boy! This was Bob Enyart’s Trochlear Challenge, where he demanded that I explain the evolutionary origin of a specific ocular muscle. Lauer brought it up so he could crow about the fact that I said “I don’t know”.

OK, but Enyart has challenged me to explain how this feature evolved. I have an answer. It’s easy.

I don’t know.

I don’t see any obvious obstacle to an arrangement of muscles evolving, but I don’t know the details of this particular set. And there’s actually a very good reason for that.

This is a case where you have to step back from the creationist and look at the big picture. Don’t get bogged down in the details. Take a look at the whole context of the question.

We don’t know exactly how this evolved because all living vertebrates, with the exception of the lamprey, have the same arrangement of extra-ocular muscles. This is a primitive and very highly conserved condition, with no extant intermediates. We’ve seen the arrangement of these muscles in 400 million year old placoderm fossils, and they’re the same; these muscles probably evolved 450 million or more years ago, and we have no record of any intermediate state. So I don’t know, and neither does anyone else.

But that’s where we have to look at the big picture: Bob Enyart, a raving loon and young earth creationist who thinks the whole planet is less than 10,000 years old, is asking me to recount the details of an event that occurred almost half a billion years ago. I should think it’s enough to shatter his position and show that he’s wrong to simply note that however it evolved, it happened in animals 75,000 times older than he claims the planet is. Has he even noticed this little problem with his question?

How nice of Lauer to remember part of what I said. But as was typical of all of his arguments, he only mentioned part of the answer, the part he could twist to fit his beliefs, and not the whole of the answer, which shot down the greater YEC thesis.

I haven’t encountered Lauer until now, and he’s based in St Cloud, where my son lives. He’s one of the many shames of Minnesota.

Lying about Native American history to benefit creationism

Portrait of a pseudoscientist

One of the landmark legal decisions in the history of American science education is Edwards v. Aguillard, a 1987 Supreme Court decision that ruled that creationism could not be taught in the classroom because it had the specific intent of introducing a narrowly sectarian religious view, which violated the separation of church and state. This is obviously true: creationism, as advanced by major Christian organizations like AiG or ICR is simply an extravagant exaggeration of the book of Genesis from the Christian Bible.

Ken Ham dreams of overturning Edwards v. Aguillard, and now he thinks he has a way.

These findings mark a monumental change in the origins debate. In the 1980s, the federal courts and the Supreme Court declared the teaching of creation science in the public schools to be invalid.7 According to the courts, creationists didn’t do science; therefore, creation science could not be taught in the science classroom. Jeanson’s new paper represents a bona fide scientific discovery, nullifying the legal basis for this 40-year-old practice.

The “findings” he is touting are from a paper by Nathaniel Jeanson, “Y-Chromosome-Guided Analysis of Mitochondrial DNA: New Evidence for a Mitochondrial DNA Root and Clock, and for at Least One Migration from Asia into the Americas in the First Millennium BC“, published in the Answers Research Journal (not a valid peer-reviewed scientific journal), which Ham thinks “proves” that creationism is scientific. Surprise, it doesn’t. Even if Jeanson’s research were valid, it is irrelevant to the whole creationism vs. evolution argument — Ham summarizes the results of the paper.

New research published today in the Answers Research Journal solves this mystery and extends our understanding of the pre-Columbian period back to the beginning of the Mayan era. Through a study of the female-inherited mitochondrial DNA, creationist biologist Nathaniel Jeanson uncovered evidence for two more migrations prior to the AD 300s. In the 100s BC, right around the time that Teotihuacan began to rise, a group of northeast Asians landed in the Americas. In the 1000s BC, right around the time that the Maya began to flourish in the Guatemalan lowlands, another group of northeast Asians arrived in the Americas./p>

What does that have to do with Genesis?

Again, Edwards v Aguillard says nothing about specific scientific research; it rejected the teaching of creationism because it was specifically intended to advance a particular religion, not that creationists are incapable of using the tools of science. It does not help their case that their research is secular when it’s published in an in-house journal dedicated to to the technical development of the Creation and Flood model of origins, written by an author who is an employee of AiG, which specifically requires that he signed a statement of faith, which states that Scripture teaches a recent origin of man and the whole creation, with history spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ and that No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture.

So even if Jeanson were doing good science within those constraints, the paper would not demonstrate secular intent. Even worse, though, Jeanson does not do good science. He’s a hack trying to force the molecular data to conform to the timeline of Genesis. Here’s an excerpt from Dan Stern Cardinale’s (a real population geneticist) review of Jeanson’s book, Traced. Jeanson doesn’t understand the basic science — he can’t, because it would undermine his entire faith-based premise.

There are, uh, significant problems with the case Jeanson makes.

The first, which underlies much of his analysis, is that he treats genealogy and phylogeny as interchangeable.

They are not interchangeable. Genealogy is the history of individuals and familial relationships. Phylogeny is the evolutionary history of groups: populations, species, etc. A phylogenetic tree may superficially look like a family tree, but all those lines and branch points represent populations, not individuals. This is an extremely basic error.

There are additional problems with each step of the case he makes.

In terms of calculating the Y-TMRCA, it’s nothing new: He uses single-generation pedigree-based mutation rates rather than long-term substitution rates. It’s the same error that invalidates his work calculating a 6000kya mitochondrial TMRCA. He even references a couple of studies that indicate the consensus date of 200-300kya for the Y-MRCA, but dismisses them as low-quality (he ignores that there are many, many more such studies).

He is constrained in an extremely narrow timespan for much of the Y-chromosome branching due to its occurrence after the flood (~4500 years ago) and running up against well-documented, recorded human history (he ignores that Egyptian history spans the Flood). So he has to squeeze a ton of human history into half a millennium, at most.

Nathaniel Jeanson isn’t going to be the secular savior of creationism. Ken Ham’s dream of overthrowing the tyranny of a Supreme Court decision is not going to be fulfilled by an incompetent hack writing bad papers. He should still have some hope, though, because the current Roberts court is hopelessly corrupt and partisan, packed with religious ideologues who are happy to overthrow precedent if it helps the far right cause. The crap pumped out by the Answers Research Journal isn’t going to help him because real scientists can see right through the pretense, but that the current administration is on a crusade to drive scientists out of the country might.

P.S. Jeanson has been scurrying about trying to find support for creationism by abusing Native American genetics, but you’re better off reading Jennifer Raff’s Origin: A Genetic History of the Americas for the real story.

Creationists still exist?

This is absurd. Here’s a video where a bunch of ICR wackaloons get interviewed.

Next you’re going to tell me some people think the earth is flat.

Anyway, that made me wonder…these are all conservative Christians. Many of the recent appointees to high positions in the federal government are also conservative Christians. Has anyone asked them their position on creation and evolution in their senate hearings? I’d be curious to hear RFK jr or Trump or Noem or Bondi state what they think about an established scientific fact, like the age of the Earth or whether humans coexisted with dinosaurs.

I suspect we’d get some waffling about “some people believe” with a conclusion about how the evidence isn’t conclusive. Which, while they don’t seem to realize it, is just a wordy admission that they are fools.