The latest blog post from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) will be difficult for us to write about, for reasons which will become apparent. As you know, ol’ Hambo is the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia. He’s famed for his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG) and for the mind-boggling Creation Museum.
Ol’ Hambo just posted this on his blog: Is Evolution the Foundation of Biology? It’s rather long, and it includes several creationist arguments. We can’t possibly deal with all of it here, so we’ll have to skip around and omit quite a bit. Here’s how it starts, and the bold font was added by us:
One of the most-repeated evolutionary mantras is that supposedly “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” In a recent article, a biology professor (who is an ardent evolutionist) at the University of Kentucky, Dr. James Krupa, explains that he teaches his non-major undergrad biology students evolution “at the beginning of a course, and as a recurring theme throughout the semester” because “evolution is the foundation upon which all biology rests.”
Hambo is talking about this excellent article by Professor Kupra: Defending Darwin. It’s highly recommended. But Hambo doesn’t provide a link to it, presumably because he doesn’t want his drooling fans to be exposed to blasphemous material — especially from a professor in Kentucky. We imagine that when he first became aware of it, he got red in the face, flew into a rage, started foaming at the mouth, then fell to the floor and began chewing the carpet. Here’s what he says about it:
But is it really impossible to understand biology without understanding evolution? Well, the many PhD scientists who study biology but reject evolution — like [he mentions creationists on his staff] — would certainly disagree with this statement! You see, there are two different kinds of science: observational and historical science.
Aaaargh!! Okay, if Hambo can keep repeating himself, so can the Curmudgeon. We discussed that bogus dichotomy in The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Creation Science, and we have a section on it in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. See also: Creationism and Science, and also Ken Ham’s Historical vs. Observational Science. Okay, back to Hambo:
Most scientists engaged in observational science rarely reference or refer to evolutionary ideas.
Yeah, it probably doesn’t come up too often among those who work at the Large Hadron Collider. But if you walk into the biology department at any university — except at a bible college — things will be different. Let’s read on:
However, there are instances where beliefs about evolution have actually held observational science back. For example, since researchers assumed evolution happened, they assumed that our bodies would be full of junk and useless leftovers from our evolutionary past. So many evolutionists didn’t bother to investigate the purposes of seemingly useless organs and structures like the appendix or the coccyx. However, we now know that the organs and structures once labelled as vestigial have been found to have an important purpose.
Uh huh. And creationism never has a deleterious effect on science. But we’ll give Hambo credit for one thing — it’s true that creation science seems to be done with the coccyx. We continue:
Since my debate with Bill Nye “the Science Guy” in 2014, I’ve been challenging evolutionists to name one piece of technology that could only have been developed starting with a belief in molecules-to-man evolution, and they (even Bill Nye) still haven’t named one. And they won’t, because there aren’t any!
Jeepers — he’s right! None of our trips to the Moon were based on evolution. Of course, it’s also true that nothing in any science has ever been accomplished based on Genesis, but Hambo doesn’t bother with that. Here’s more:
Many well-meaning creationists will say “evolution is just a theory” when they are arguing with an evolutionist who presents evolution as a die-hard fact of nature. But, while well-intentioned, this is actually an argument that we think creationists shouldn’t use. You see, calling evolution a “theory” raises it to a level is really doesn’t deserve!
Wanna read more of that? You’ll have to click over there. We’ll skip it and move along to the next item:
Krupa [the University of Kentucky professor] states, “I continue to teach biology as I do, because biology makes sense only in the light of evolution.” But what has evolution really done to further our understanding of biology? According to evolutionary ideas about the past, life originated from non-life at some point in the past. However, evolutionists have no plausible mechanism for how this could happen. Everything we see in nature confirms the law of biogenesis — life only comes from other life. Life never comes from non-life.
Aaaargh!! Evolution isn’t about the origin of life, and there is no law of biogenesis — except in creationist literature. We have a brief section on it in our Common Creationist Claims Confuted. As for the chemical origin of life, there are numerous plausible mechanisms, but life hasn’t been created yet in the lab. When it happens, as it surely will, the creationists will be complaining that it was deliberately done, so that proves life requires a designer. Another excerpt:
Biology certainly makes sense without Darwin. Creationists were doing biology before Darwin, and creationists continue to do biology without Darwin today.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We’ll wrap it up with a teaser from near the end of Hambo’s essay:
Our ministry friend Ray Comfort recently received some encouraging feedback on Facebook, and he shared it with us. This brief story highlights how those blinded from the truth by evolutionary ideas can be shown the problems with evolution and be shown how biblical creation does explain the evidence, and then be pointed to the Creator, our Savior, Jesus Christ.
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.