There’s no way to prepare you for this, dear reader, except to warn you that you may find it to be shocking. It comes to us from the blog of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia, famed not only for his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG), but also for the infamous, mind-boggling Creation Museum, and for building an exact replica of Noah’s Ark.
Even the title of Hambo’s post is a shock: Natural Selection — the Opposite of Evolution.
Before we proceed, pause for a moment to let the meaning of Hambo’s title sink in. The implications are staggering! All this time you’ve been thinking that natural selection is the principal mechanism of evolution — but Hambo says that’s totally wrong. The two are opposites! Don’t resist, dear reader. Let’s find out what Hambo says. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
[The author of an article] says that, “It is critical that the voting public have a clear understanding of evolution. Adaptation by natural selection, the primary mechanism of evolution, underpins a raft of current social concerns such as antibiotic resistance, the impact of climate change and the relationship between genes and the environment.” She then continues throughout her article to talk about the importance of understanding natural selection and how best to get children to think this way.
What’s wrong with that? Hambo explains:
Now, here at AiG, we would agree that a proper knowledge of natural selection is important. We spend a good deal of time researching and talking about natural selection. But natural selection is not “molecules-to-man evolution” (hereafter referred to as evolution)! It is true that evolutionists will use the term evolution for natural selection, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who believes in natural selection believes in Darwinian evolution!
This is getting strange. Let’s read on:
Natural selection removes or reorganizes genetic information, allowing different traits, such as different beak sizes (e.g., the finches of the Galapagos), to show up. Those organisms best suited to their environment survive while the others die off or don’t reproduce as well. Of course, those that thrive pass along their unique combination of genes to the next generation, skewing the gene pool in their favor. Eventually this can allow new species (such as a new species of finch) to arise. But this isn’t evolution!
No? Then what is it? If you’re expecting him to say it’s micro, not macro evolution, you’re in for a surprise. Hambo tells us:
It’s really just an outworking of the phenomenal amount of genetic variability God built into each kind of organism.
Oh. Okay. Here’s more:
Evolution requires an addition of brand-new information so that novel traits (never seen before) can arise.
[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh — information! [*End Drool Mode*] That’s another Discoveroid doctrine Hambo has embraced — see Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information. Moving along:
You can’t change an amoeba into an astronaut without adding new information and new features! But natural selection can’t do that. It can remove or reshuffle information, but it can never create brand-new information. Because natural selection is the exact opposite of evolution, it can’t be a mechanism for this unobserved process.
Deal with it, dear reader. Natural selection can’t add new information. Oh, we know what you’re thinking. So does Hambo. He’s way ahead of you. He declares:
And mutations don’t add new information either.
Your Curmudgeon used to think otherwise because of research like this: How One Gene Becomes Two Different Genes. But Hambo tells us why that’s wrong:
We always see organisms reproducing according to their kind, just as it says in Genesis [scripture reference]. There is a huge amount of variety within a kind (think of poodles, Great Danes, wolves, dingoes, and boxers), but one kind has never been observed to turn into another kind, nor is there a mechanism for this imagined evolution.
Hambo is so wise! This is his concluding paragraph:
We need to teach children and teens about natural selection, but we need to do so in the context of observational science and a biblical worldview. … When we start with God’s Word, we have a proper foundation for understanding and teaching science regarding what we observe.
At last, dear reader, you know The Truth™. No go forth, purged of your foolishness.
Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.