The Ice Age, the Woolly Mammoth, & the Bible

The things that interest Ken Ham, (ol’ Hambo) often amaze us. As you know, he’s the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. Look what he just posted at Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: Will Woolly Mammoths Walk the Earth Again? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

One start-up has a lofty goal — to “resurrect” the woolly mammoth by 2027 . . . sort of. You see, if successful, it will not be a true woolly mammoth like those that lived during the post-flood ice age but, rather, a modern elephant with edited genes (thanks to the “molecular scissors” technology CRISPR — giving it smaller ears, more body fat, and the ability to survive the cold Arctic tundra.

The project described in Hambo’s link is certainly interesting, but why is he interested? He says:

The company hopes that their hybrids will start having calves within four to six years and that artificial wombs will eventually help bolster large-scale herds to roam an area of Arctic Russia. But, to them, this is more than an interesting science experiment. They’re hoping the “mammoth” herds will have a positive environmental impact and help fight climate change. [Quote from the article omitted.] If they’re successful, they want to try restoring the woolly rhino (another ice age creature) next.

Does Hambo have a problem with this? He tells us:

Now, how do we understand woolly mammoths and elephants in a biblical worldview? [What?] Well, we understand they are from the same created kind. You see, God created creatures to reproduce according to their kinds, but there’s a lot of genetic diversity within a kind so creatures can adapt and spread out around the earth.

According to Hambo, it’s divinely allowed to have diversity within a “kind,” but one kind can never evolve into another kind. You probably recognized the micro-macro mambo, described in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Hambo continues:

God gave the original elephant kind the genetic diversity to produce mammoths, Asian elephants, African elephants, and many other species that have since gone extinct. This allows them to fill different environments such as the Arctic tundra, savannahs of Africa, or the forests of Asia. It’s all part of God’s “very good” design.

That’s thrilling information, but what are we supposed to do with it? Let’s read on:

Oh, and the ice age was caused by the flood. [Hee hee!] And since the ice age peaked several hundred years after the flood, the earth has been settling down from the effects of the flood and catastrophic ice age.

Groan! The bible uses the word “ice” only three times, and it doesn’t even hint at an ice age. We’ve discussed this before — see Hambo Explains the Post-Flood Ice Age. Okay, back to Hambo’s post for another excerpt:

If people don’t accept the true history of the earth from the Bible, they won’t understand why, for example, many glaciers have been melting.

The bible explains why glaciers are melting? Wowie! For some reason, Hambo doesn’t give us a quote from scripture on that subject. And here’s our last excerpt:

Regardless, God made this promise:

While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease (Genesis 8:22).

And there you have it — the ice age, the melting glaciers, and the restoration of the woolly mammoth — all in one glorious post. Isn’t Hambo the greatest?

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

16 responses to “The Ice Age, the Woolly Mammoth, & the Bible

  1. “Oh, and the ice age”

    Oh, you’re full of baloney. Oh, you keep using that word “understand”.

  2. Just out of curiosity, are the elephant kind mentioned in the Bible? Taking “kind” to be the taxon family, that would be the Elephantidae, including mammoths. The Wikipedia “List of animals in the Bible” tells us that elephants are only mentioned in the books of Maccabees, not in the ordinary Hebrew canon of the Bible. But there are mentions of ivory.

  3. siluriantrilobite

    In the video associated with the post by Ham they discuss not only the Wooly Mammoth but a new dinosaur discovery from Uzbekistan. The dinosaur part of the video is discussed here:


  4. “kinds”, “the flood”, “a global ice age that lasted only a few hundred years”… one could go on. But what Ham truly understands is marketing. These responses are irrelevant until you put them in the context of a marketing strategy. Ham is committed to being out in front of his constituency, responding to the minutiae of daily life, so that his followers always have an “answer” to their questions, even those that they haven’t even thought of yet. “Mammoths? Who cares? Oh wait, they’re not “real” mammoths anyway. and the original mammoths were around during the ice age after the flood. Hallelujah”

  5. Charles Deetz ;)

    I remember hambo’s timeline, he had maybe 150 years between mastodons and mammoths. A miracle that isn’t even in the bible.

  6. Ham is pursuing his evil agenda of denying the importance of current global warming. This pleases his political constituency. His timeline for the Ice Age (he can hardly deny that there was such a thing, given the gross physical evidence) places it overlapping the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who nonetheless had cattle and camels. But not mammoths

  7. About the mammoths and climate change:

  8. I don’t see why the kinds can’t evolve into other kinds. I don’t recall any Bible rules preventing it. The “there were original kinds and only those kinds and you cants haves no more kinds other than the original kinds” rule is a made up one that lives only in Ken’s head. That’s assuming he believes his own baloney of course. Could be a fraud like @tedinoz suggests.

  9. @richard, Genesis is quite clear. Everything reproduces after its kind. So variation within a kind is consistent with Genesis, but descent of one kind from another seems on a plain reading to be implicitly ruled out

  10. @Paul Braterman
    The word “kind” is used in a very restricted context, and it might not be a noun designating any category of things. For example, it is never used of humans. There is nothing which says one and only one kind of each living thing – if an animal changes from clean to unclean what does say about kind. how about caterpillar to moth?
    Where does the Bible say that everything reproduces according to its kind? It says that plants contain seed according to their kind, yes.

  11. @TomS, you’re right! Concerning plants,

    11 And God said: ‘Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.’ And it was so.
    וַ 12And earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

    But concerning animals, merely

    24 And God said: ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.’ And it was so.

    25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

    I read this as possibly implying that herbs and trees breed after their kind, but (to my surprise) there is indeed no such restriction stated for animals

  12. 12 And earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

    That’s all past tense though. After the kinds got here, who’s says they can’t evolve. Especially since they didn’t even know about evolution. I totally could see a hypothetical Norm Macdonald here. “Hey guys, no evolution allowed. No idea what the hell what I just said means but you can’t do it anyway.”

  13. Ack. Norm Macdonald joke here.

  14. @richard
    I go farther, and suggest that “according to their kind” does not mean that there is a thing (like a category) named by “kind”. I read “according to their kind” as something like “appropriately”. Plants have their own roots and leaves and flowers and seeds according to their kind. Creeping animals were created according to their kind, etc And humans were created … not according to their kind, but in the image of God.
    Don’t quote me on this, I know that I don’t have the expertise to pronounce on this.

  15. Ah right. I see. Those darn creationists get their claws in things and bend words around how they want. They repeat it so much that it’s ingrained in our culture that kinds are species. Biologos (for lack of not looking around for better sources) has an article about kinds.

  16. Thank you @richard for that essay in Biologos. It confirms what I had thought.