Ken Ham Says Roadside Evolution Is Biblical

A few months ago, PhysOrg had an article with this headline: Roads are driving rapid evolutionary change in our environment. It reported:

Said to be the largest human artifact on the planet, roads impact the ecology of nearly 20 percent of the U.S. landscape alone, and globally, are projected to increase 60 percent in length by 2050; yet, how roads are triggering contemporary evolutionary changes among plants and animals, is a topic that has typically been overlooked.

By drawing on previous studies, the researchers [see Road ecology: shifting gears toward evolutionary perspectives] show that the numerous negative effects of roads – such as pollution and road kill – can cause rapid evolutionary changes in road-adjacent populations. This finding that roads spur rapid evolution is transforming scientists’ views of the biological impacts caused by the ever-expanding network of roads. Over a period of just a few generations – and in one case in as few as just 30 years – some populations living in road-adjacent habitat are evolving higher tolerance to pollutants, such as road salt runoff; the common grass Anthoxanthum odoratum is one such example, the spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) is another.

That’s enough background. Now we get the reaction of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. He just posted Is Evolution “Breaking Speed Limits” Along Highways? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Road ecology is the study of “how roads, and the salts and chemicals we put on these roads, impact nearby nature.” Well, according to a new study, roads are leading to “rapid evolution” on either side of the highway. This isn’t the first time we’ve heard of so-called “rapid evolution” — scientists are increasingly observing small changes over short timescales and calling it “rapid evolution.” But is this change within various plant and animal kinds actually evolution in the sense that new genetic information is appearing?

At this point, it’s important to note that “information” in this context is a creationist invention. Evolution is the result of change in a population’s genome over several generations. Creationists recently started to insist that true evolution requires the addition of some magical quality they call information, and if they don’t see it, there wasn’t any evolution. It’s a convenient, but nonsensical form of denial. See Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information.

Okay, back to Hambo. He says:

According to study coauthor Steven Brady, this study observed that “individual plants that are living right next to a road … have evolved the ability to deal with higher concentrations of things like lead, from fuel.” He also says that on either side of the road “scientists are seeing differences in how one group of amphibians evolves compared to another nearby population.” The observational evidence shows small changes within a roadside population and small differences between populations based on their proximity to a barrier (a road).

Well, that’s evolution, isn’t it? No, not according to Hambo. He tells us:

The idea that this is “rapid evolution” is a worldview-based interpretation of the evidence. The researchers start with the assumption of molecules-to-man evolution and interpret the evidence through that lens. But these small changes aren’t evolutionary changes. No new genetic information is being added to the genomes of plants or amphibians.

The drooling reader probably assumes that Hambo’s creation scientists searched the genomes of these new populations and failed to find new information. He continues:

Each group is either losing or reshuffling information to deal with the changes and stresses of their changing environment. This isn’t evolution (which requires [Hee hee!] an addition of brand-new information). It’s variability within a created kind — natural selection operating on the genetic information that is already present.

Ah yes, those organism were already equipped with the “information” necessary to tolerate a high concentration of lead from fuel. Let’s read on:

Evolution is supposedly a slow-and-steady process, adding new genetic information over millions of years. What does it mean that examples of so-called rapid evolution keep popping up all over the place? Well, it supports a biblical timeline, not an evolutionary one.

For those who may find that last sentence stunning, because they’ve been misled by the devil’s evil horde of evolutionists, Hambo explains:

From a biblical perspective, God created living things with an incredible amount of genetic variability so that each kind could adapt to changing environments (but adaptation is confined within a kind, which is exactly what we observe). We would expect this to happen fairly quickly seeing that there’s only been 6,000 years since creation and about 4,350 years since the Flood; in fact, we already see a wide variety of adaptation within most kinds (e.g., tigers, lions, and cougars in the cat kind).

So there you are. All the “information” was miraculously jammed into each “kind” when the world was created 6,000 years ago. Rapid changes are biblical. Slow changes that evolutionists talk about don’t happen because: (1) there isn’t enough time; and (2) there’s no natural way new information can be added. All clear now?

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

20 responses to “Ken Ham Says Roadside Evolution Is Biblical

  1. I didn’t see any Bible quotations to back up this article.
    For example,
    From a biblical perspective, God created living things with an incredible amount of genetic variability so that each kind could adapt to changing environments (but adaptation is confined within a kind, which is exactly what we observe).
    I don’t remember anywhere in the Bible where it mentions:
    genetic variability
    adapt/adaptation
    confined within a kind
    changing environments

    When did any Christian ever mention any of these concepts before the rise of modern science? (Before the year 1500?)

  2. Michael Fugate

    TomS, you forgot in Ken’s narcissistic mind his perspective is synonymous with a biblical perspective.

  3. Ham’s post is so full of nonsense its not worth replying to.

    Let them believe six impossible things before breakfast if they want. Just keep that nonsense out of the schools.

  4. @MF
    Don’t any of the followers ever notice that the Bible doesn’t tell us anything about those ideas?

  5. The Orchardist

    Its bad enough what Ken Ham writes but consider this – there are people out there who vote that actually believe what he says!

    Scared?

  6. Michael Fugate

    TomS – do you think they read?

  7. Why did the chicken cross the road? To adapt or perish.

  8. @MF
    One of the things that surprised me as I first learned about creationism was how little they read the Bible. And one of my weaknesses is my lapsing into that naive state. I have to rely on people to remind me. Thank you.

  9. The bible says that animals reproduce after their kinds. Except they don’t. Sheep don’t reproduce after goats nor spaniels after Great Danes (each pair are of the same kind according to St Ham). In fact, they all reproduce after their parents – and then not exactly.

  10. Ross Cameron

    Let me get this straight. God created everything. He put ‘information’ in every critter so it could adapt. Like E coli and the many predatory microbes that are adapting to our drugs with their built-in ‘information’. Therefore god set out to inflict all those 33,000 diseases on us. And made them incurable.Have I got it right, Hambo?

  11. jimroberts

    No, no! Before the Fall, all those pathogens lived peacefully eating coconuts.

  12. “Creationists recently started to insist that true evolution requires the addition of some magical quality they call information.”
    A few weeks ago I had a remarkable exchange of thoughts with a Dutch creacrapper on a Dutch creacrap blog (unlike AIG they can’t even settle on the age of the Universe – sometimes it’s 6000 years, sometimes 80 000, but the Big Bang didn’t happen).

    Creacrapper: Evolution is not testable.
    MNb: Sure it is. Keep dogs isolated from gray wolves for another 10 000 years and they will have become a separate species.
    Creacrapper: Speciation has nothing to do with evolution! Evolution is the addition of information and that’s impossible!

  13. There is a statement in the Bible that “all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”
    And who says that? “there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying … all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”
    2 Peter 3

  14. Ross Cameron struggles with the finer points of Creationism/ID:

    Let me get this straight. God created everything. He put ‘information’ in every critter so it could adapt. Like E coli and the many predatory microbes that are adapting to our drugs with their built-in ‘information’. Therefore god set out to inflict all those 33,000 diseases on us. And made them incurable.Have I got it right, Hambo?

    While all ID/Creationists all seem to agree that “Information” is a mystical sine qua non for the existence of living things, they are fabulously inconsistent on the claims highlighted here, viz.,

    (A) does the Intelligent Designer massively front-load organisms with all their ‘Information’ at the point of creation as a fiendishly clever overarching master plan?

    or

    (B) does the Intelligent Designer regularly tinker with the cosmos by introducing ‘new Information’ into organisms, either on a whim or else as essential in-flight adjustment of a fiendishly clever overarching master plan?

    In the case of (A), the Intelligent Designer, at the moment of the Creation, had pre-planned every single human life–yours, mine, Mother Teresa’s, Adolf Hitler’s, and of course all the millions of peasants who were ordained to die from the Black Death in the 14th Century &c &c. So you really should feel deeply privileged!

    In the case of (B), the Intelligent Designer closely monitors the world and, in order to keep it on track with the overarching master plan, determines from time to time that the world needs, say, a new Zika virus–for benevolent reasons we mere mortals can’t even guess at, of course–and downloads the appropriate ‘Information’ to create such. And we should still feel deeply privileged!

    Both possibilities are consistent with the teleological assumptions which are aximomatic with Creationism/ID. But in the absence of any empirical evidence whatsoever, it is of course impossible to argue convincingly in favour of either alternative here.

  15. Eric Lipps

    Saith Ken Ham:

    Each group is either losing or reshuffling information to deal with the changes and stresses of their changing environment. This isn’t evolution (which requires [Hee hee!] an addition of brand-new information). It’s variability within a created kind — natural selection operating on the genetic information that is already present.

    How does he know there’s no new information involved?

  16. How does he know there’s no new information involved?
    Because the laws of nature are intelligently designed so as to produce the results that God wants. (They are fine-tuned to make life possible, for example. See the Anthropic Principle.) If anything were only slightly different, we would not recognize the Universe.
    That’s how we know that there is no increase in information involved.
    As to how we can account for decreases in information, well, that’s different.

  17. How does The Hammer know there is no new information – it’s right there in Ecclesiastes!! What exists now is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing truly new on earth. Ecc 1:9

  18. techreseller

    The Orchardist; Does the fact that these people vote scare me? Certainly does. I see no way to prevent them from voting. The sad thing, is they vote for the people who lie to them the most. They disregard the honest office seekers who tell them the decisions are hard, the way to solve the problems are hard. Then people who desperately need some sort of health insurance vote for Trump. What really scares me is will they figure out they were duped? Or will they continue to blame the “swamp” for Trump not delivering? Truly scary.

  19. @Mega tries to reflect on what must pass for creationist thinking:

    “Both possibilities are consistent with the teleological assumptions which are aximomatic with Creationism/ID. But in the absence of any empirical evidence whatsoever, it is of course impossible to argue convincingly in favour of either alternative here.”
    For the Grand Old Designer (blessed be Him/Her/It/Them!) nothing is impossible, so one, the other and/or both are correct depending on the needs of the creacrapper involved.

  20. TomS, could you do me (perhaps us) a favour and not take over IDiot lies?

    “(They are fine-tuned to make life possible, for example. See the Anthropic Principle.)”
    Fine tuning is not the Anthropic Principle. From Wikipedia:

    “The anthropic principle is a philosophical consideration that observations of the Universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it.”
    IDiots and many other apologists of course twist this principle by adding a teleological element and the same time denying that they do, so that they can hide they are essentially begging the question. For us that’s should just be a good reason to not grant this point to them.