If ever there were ever a location in this world that provides evidence for evolution, it’s the Galápagos Islands. As Darwin wrote in Origin of Species, Chapter 12 – Geographical Distribution continued, with bold font added by us:
The most striking and important fact for us in regard to the inhabitants of islands, is their affinity to those of the nearest mainland, without being actually the same species. Numerous instances could be given of this fact. I will give only one, that of the Galapagos Archipelago, situated under the equator, between 500 and 600 miles from the shores of South America. Here almost every product of the land and water bears the unmistakeable stamp of the American continent. … Why should this be so? Why should the species which are supposed to have been created in the Galapagos Archipelago, and nowhere else, bear so plain a stamp of affinity to those created in America? There is nothing in the conditions of life, in the geological nature of the islands, in their height or climate, or in the proportions in which the several classes are associated together, which resembles closely the conditions of the South American coast: in fact there is a considerable dissimilarity in all these respects. … On the other hand, there is a considerable degree of resemblance in the volcanic nature of the soil, in climate, height, and size of the islands, between the Galapagos and Cape de Verde Archipelagos: but what an entire and absolute difference in their inhabitants! The inhabitants of the Cape de Verde Islands are related to those of Africa, like those of the Galapagos to America. I believe this grand fact can receive no sort of explanation on the ordinary view of independent creation; whereas on the view here maintained, it is obvious that the Galapagos Islands would be likely to receive colonists, whether by occasional means of transport or by formerly continuous land, from America; and the Cape de Verde Islands from Africa; and that such colonists would be liable to modifications; the principle of inheritance still betraying their original birthplace.
The law which causes the inhabitants of an archipelago, though specifically distinct, to be closely allied to those of the nearest continent, we sometimes see displayed on a small scale, yet in a most interesting manner, within the limits of the same archipelago. Thus the several islands of the Galapagos Archipelago are tenanted, as I have elsewhere shown, in a quite marvellous manner, by very closely related species; so that the inhabitants of each separate island, though mostly distinct, are related in an incomparably closer degree to each other than to the inhabitants of any other part of the world.
The principle which determines the general character of the fauna and flora of oceanic islands, namely, that the inhabitants, when not identically the same, yet are plainly related to the inhabitants of that region whence colonists could most readily have been derived, the colonists having been subsequently modified and better fitted to their new homes, is of the widest application throughout nature.
That’s enough. We all understand Darwin’s theory, and the evidence that led him to it. But did you know that — gasp! — Darwin was wrong? Yes, dear reader, that’s what we learn today from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia, famed for his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG) and for the infamous, mind-boggling Creation Museum.
Hambo just posted this amazing article at his blog: Different View of the Galápagos. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
The Galápagos Islands of South America have been used for so long to promote Darwin’s ideas about evolution that, to many people, these Galápagos Islands are now synonymous with evolution. But these beautiful and unique islands are actually evidence of a creator and a testament to the truth of His Word.
Wow — our teachers lied to us! Let’s read on:
AiG’s Dr. Georgia Purdom takes you on a journey through the incredible Galápagos from the biblical perspective in her book Galápagos Islands: A Different View.
Ah yes, Georgia Purdom, one of ol’ Hambo’s creation scientists. We’ve written about her before — see Vomit Opportunity: Bryan Fischer & Georgia Purdom. Then Hambo tells us even more about her book:
Filled with stunning photographs, this book will equip you to counter the claim that the Galápagos is a testament to evolutionary ideas.
Oh yeah — you’ll be equipped. After you read it, you’ll impress your friends even more than if you answer an ad in the back of a comic book and learn to play the accordion. But that’s not all:
This unique book contains articles from nearly 30 creation theologians and scientists who will strengthen your faith in God’s Word and help you develop a more biblical worldview.
Nearly 30 creation theologians — that’s very impressive! The rest of Hambo’s post is a sales pitch for Purdom’s book, which is available from Hambo’s online bookstore. This is an opportunity you don’t want to pass up!
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
Not surprising… For those bozos everything proves creationism… It’s utterly unfalsifiable.
I’ve come across this creationist argument before. As I (very vaguely) recall it, only the mysteriously moving Creator would have thought it necessary to give the finches on the different islands different bill-shapes; blind evolution would have given them all the same bill-shape because, er, the islands are all kind of sameish, or something.
realthog theorizes: “only the mysteriously moving Creator would have thought it necessary to give the finches on the different islands different bill-shapes”
Yeah, it’s like fine-tuning.
As the finches might put it, Don’t bill us we’ll . . . lost the track there somewhere.
Planned on getting a free sample from Kindle and sharing the gloryofhisherits Galapagos with y’all. However after a reminder, that covers half of the cover page, to buy the full version, I can’t get to the 3rd page before I’m kicked back to my home page on my Kindle. Some intervention(Divine perhaps?) didn’t want me to share it on here I guess. I can tell you the lead-in says it’s a Darwin world view vs a Biblical one, there’s oodles of Apolgetical Mensa-types with their own chapters and commentary, and loads of pictures. Sorry that’s all I got for ya 😦
You shouldn’t make fun of comics, SC. How do you think I learned to play harmonica?
@Kenny I took a look at Amazon, and had to dig around in the preview to find actual content. I’d have to agree with one of the four-star reviews there: “The Creation/Evolution question is explored carefully for the reader, who could be as young as a third grader.”
The book is listed as out for over a year and just twelve reviews. I guess dedicated creationists don’t use Amazon, even to fleece the reviews. This review is a gem tho: “Pictures were incredible, however the biblical references threw us come truly off guard. We attempted to send it back.”
After the finches get their bills, do they put their chicks in the mail?
Groan. Does this mean that the only way to discover the content of this volume, if there is any, is to somehow obtain a copy and (aaarrggh!) read it?
There are sacrifices too great, I tell you. Not to mention that as matters presently stand, the exercise would involve giving money to Ham, and I have a fixed and rooted objection to bankrolling con-men. Maybe if someone retrieves a copy from a dumpster somewhere?
Georgia Purdum’s thesis is that evolution is true but it is subtractive from God’s original designs. I suppose that is how an academic can deal with the uncomfortable facts that her religion and reality to mesh up. (I’d suggest it is harder to innovate, especially in certain species, but any innovation will rapidly spread in a population amplifying the effect.)
Favorite review of Purdum’s book on Amazon:
“Pictures were incredible, however the biblical references threw us come truly off guard. We attempted to send it back.”
What do you know, even creationists can take great pictures.
@Dave Luckett “Retrieves a copy” – that’s how I got my copy of “Pandas and People”. Not precisely from a dumpster, though. I wonder whether there several copies available that way in Dover, Pa., a few years ago?
*sees scenic photos of islands* Wow, my entire worldview has been changed. These glossy pictures have proven to me that all geological and anthropological research is false and merely a ploy by Satan to hide the glory of god’s creation.
Our Curmudgeon correctly points out that mastering the contents of Purdom’s book will
But what about X-Ray Specs? Please don’t tell me that Purdom’s book is more cool than owning a pair of those!
They’re equally cool. The AiGsters’ trade secret is that they use X-Ray Specs to see through Darwinism.
Megalonyx asks: “But what about X-Ray Specs?”
Here ya go: 12 Comic Book Ads That Taught Us To Be Cynical.
I don’t really care if evilution or creationism are right or wrong…which one works so as to solve problems??? So far the creatards have had 4000yrs to get things solved and make my life better and they have a big FAIL!!!
Evilution has killed off a number of diseases and help me stay healthy, creation has given me NOTHING!!! So put up or go away.
Redstar is a bit sad: “Not surprising… For those bozos everything proves creationism… It’s utterly unfalsifiable.”
Hey – we can play that game too! Ken Ham utterly disproves creationism – no creator with a sane mind (and christian creators have sane minds by definition) would produce someone as ridiculous as Ol’ Hambo.
Kenny Walter apologizes: “Sorry that’s all I got for ya”
AfaIc it’s already too much.
SC: “Ah yes, Georgia Purdom, one of ol’ Hambo’s creation scientists.”
If there were ever a word that deserves quotation marks, it’s the word “scientists” in that sentence.
@The Curmudgeon & Megalonyx: Re: the comic book ads — #3 reminded me of some insults the two of you hurled back and forth across the Atlantic.
Oh, darn. Looks like I forgot to turn off the italics machine again. Oh, well; it makes it look interesting.
[*Voice from above*] But you did remember to turn off the bold font — twice. Alas, you had forgotten that the first time it was italics you had turned on.
Whenever I see a “X proves creationism” headline 2 things immediately come to mind:
1. If the claim is correct, it falsifies every version of creationism that contradicts it. And since such grandiose claims usually come from heliocentric YECs (e.g. Ham, as in this case), it falsifies what the majority of committed evolution-deniers (mostly vague OEC, and some geocentric YECs) believe.
2. If the claim is correct orconvincing to the Discoveroids, why are they not jumping on the bandwagon? They can just omit the “proves creation” part and say that the “evidences” falsify “Darwinism.” It would give them a much better chance of winning the next court case.