The Sunday Times recently published 10 misconceptions about the theory of evolution. It’s a good collection of some of the common clunkers we see all the time.
That article was deeply disturbing to Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), 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 has just posted an angry response at his blog: Do We Have Misconceptions About Evolution?. Except for one or two of the items on the Times list, he claims they’re not misconceptions at all. Hambo ain’t got no misconceptions!
It would be too tedious to go through all of them, but we’ll give you a few excerpts from Hambo’s response, with some bold font added by us for emphasis. He starts out with a bit of an introduction:
A recent article in the Sunday Times claims that “of all the scientific fields, evolution probably carries the most common misconceptions.” It then goes on to describe 10 alleged misconceptions of evolutionary ideas. Many of these misconceptions are topics we’ve already pointed out and covered on our website. As Christians we need to be careful not to misrepresent what evolutionists believe, so we encourage Christians to avoid certain arguments. But some of the alleged misconceptions about evolution that made the Sunday Times list are actually not misconceptions at all!
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Here’s the first one:
The article begins with a common argument that misinformed creationists often use, “It’s only a theory.” Now, as we’ve pointed out before, saying that evolution is a “theory” actually raises it to a level it doesn’t deserve. You see, scientists use “theory” differently than laypeople do. … They mean a hypothesis (educated guess) that has stood up to testing and observation and forms “an explanatory framework that allows them to understand natural processes.” Now, despite what the article states about evolution, it certainly doesn’t meet these criteria. Molecules-to-man evolution has never been observed, nor can it be tested (since the alleged past cannot be repeated), and, although evolution is used by many scientists to explain the past, it constantly has to be changed to match new evidence — not the mark of a good theory! Evolution is a belief, and a blind faith belief at that. In fact, it’s a belief that lacks credulity.
Good, huh? Oh, all right, here’s our usual refutation of the “can’t be tested” clunker: The Lessons of Tiktaalik. Let’s read on:
Next they claim that another misconception is that “It’s for atheists.” True, not every evolutionist is an atheist. But, at its heart, it cannot be denied that evolution is inherently atheistic. It ignores the true history revealed in God’s Word and explains life without any need to appeal to a Creator, often going to great lengths, in fact, to avoid it. Really, the secularists cling to molecules-to-man evolutionary ideas because it’s their way of attempting to explain the origin of universe and life by natural processes — it is inherently an atheistic religion.
We assume Hambo thinks chemistry is also an atheistic religion, for the same reasons. So is astronomy, geology, and every other branch of science, because all of them ignore “the true history revealed in God’s Word.” Hambo continues:
The next misconception they mention is the idea that, according to evolution, “Life evolves randomly.” Mutations themselves are in fact random, and both evolutionists and creationists agree on this point. However, to my knowledge creationists never say that natural selection is random because it does select organisms that are best suited for a particular environment which makes it non-random. The writer of the article has set up a straw man. Regardless of the randomness or non-randomness of mutations and natural selection, they still cannot fuel evolution. Both result in a loss or simply a reshuffling of information, not the addition of brand-new information that evolution requires.
That’s not really a refutation of the “randomness” clunker, but it gives Hambo’s drooling fans the impression that he’s right and the Times is wrong. As for his nonsense about “information,” see Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information. Here’s more:
Another misconception according to them is that evolution is “a search for the origin of life.” Now, this is true — biological evolution doesn’t deal with the origin of life. Chemical evolution does. But without the origin of life evolution can’t go anywhere! So the two are intricately tied together. But the origin of life is impossible. You can’t get life from non-life because the law of biogenesis, which matches with everything we’ve ever observed in nature, states that life only comes from other life. Life doesn’t arise from non-life.
Ah yes, the imaginary “law of biogenesis.” We dealt with that in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Now we’ll skip to the end:
Lastly [in the Times list of misconceptions], they say, “The study of evolution is useless.”
The Times refuted that one by saying:
[P]ractical applications exist: We are currently seeing the emergence of “Darwinian” medicine, in which treatments that take into account the evolution of humans and germs, which have gone through their own adjustments, are being developed. All this, doctors hope, should make it possible to study illnesses under a new light.
In truth, although it’s a good thing to understand the history of life on Earth, the practical applications of evolution are few, at least so far. But then, that’s true of some other sciences — like cosmology. Also, it was difficult in 1905 to see any practical applications of relativity, but a century later it’s proved useful, as in the Global Positioning System. Basic science is a worthy endeavor, even if there are currently no practical applications one can buy and use. It’s certainly better than ignorance and misinformation, which will never have any utility. Anyway, here’s Hambo’s response:
This is not a misconception — I couldn’t agree more. Evolution, a wrong idea about the history of Earth based on man’s fallible opinions, has contributed nothing to our knowledge of Earth’s history or our technology. Instead, we need to start with God’s Word and interpret the world through the true history given to us by the infallible, perfect Creator. At the Bill Nye debate and a number of times since, I have asked Bill Nye or any secularist to give just one example where belief in molecules-to-man evolution is needed to develop a piece of technology! They can’t give one idea — not one — because molecules-to-man evolution is a belief, a religion!
Oh — if it’s a religion, then of course it’s utterly useless. Good point, Hambo!
Okay, that’s enough. Now go ahead and read the whole Times article, then read all of Hambo’s responses. Decide for yourself who’s right.
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.