This is a good example of creation science from Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo). It’s a reprint of something from 1994, which they’re posting again because their stuff is timeless. The title is The Hopeful Monsters of Evolution. It was written by David Menton. AIG’s bio page says:
Dr. David Menton holds a PhD in biology from Brown University and served as an award-winning professor at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis for 34 years. He retired as an Associate Professor Emeritus and now serves with Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher.
This is his write-up at the Encyclopedia of American Loons: David Menton, and here ere are some excerpts from his essay, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
Since the time of Darwin, evolutionists have looked to the fossil record for historical evidence of evolution. Most evolutionists now concede, however, that the fossil record fails to show the progressive transformation of any living organism into a distinctly different kind of organism.
Can you believe that they’re still posting stuff like this? We always link to Wikipedia’s growing List of transitional fossils, and we’ll also give you two of several relevant links from the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims: There are no transitional fossils, and We should see smooth change through the fossil record, not gaps.
Okay, you know what we’re dealing with, so let’s proceed. Menton says:
This [alleged lack of transitionals] has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists — but they have made it clear that they will not be dissuaded by the mere lack of evidence, nor will they turn to a Creator to explain this enigma. Rather, evolutionists hope that monsters may come to their rescue!
Stunning, isn’t it? What’s this stuff about monsters? We’ll get to it. Menton tells us:
All animals and plants appear suddenly in the fossil record and are not preceded by continuous transitional stages. While some of these fossilized organisms have become extinct, many have persisted right up to the present time in what appears to be essentially their original form, showing only a limited range of variation.
The absence of even a single example of a continuous fossil sequence showing the progressive stages of evolution of any plant or animal would certainly seem to be an insurmountable problem for evolutionism. Evolutionists have long been aware of this problem and have felt compelled to try to explain it away by any means possible, short of abandoning their faith in evolutionism itself.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! He continues:
Paleontologists have indeed been trying to imagine some “special explanation” for how progressive evolution could occur without leaving any fossil evidence. Since evolutionary speculations have rarely been restricted by the demands of experimental verification, evolutionists have allowed their imaginations to run free and have now devised a really outrageous explanation for their lack of evidence.
Menton then refers to some scientists from the 1930s and 1940s who allegedly gave up on the hope of ever finding transitional fossils. One of them is Richard Goldschmidt of the University of California at Berkeley. Menton tells us:
He suggested that the answer might lie in what are known as embryological monsters, such as the occasional birth of a two-legged sheep or a two-headed turtle. Goldschmidt conceded that such monsters rarely survived very long in nature, but he hoped that over a long period of time some monsters might actually be better suited to survive and reproduce than their normal siblings. Goldschmidt named this monstrously hopeless speculation the “hopeful monster theory.” Since there was not even the slightest shred of evidence to support the hopeful monster theory, it was dismissed with derision by almost all evolutionists of his time. But Goldschmidt was quick to point out to his critics that there wasn’t the slightest evidence for their gradual evolution either!
Wikipedia has a write up on Richard Goldschmidt. He was regarded as a bit of a kook by his contemporaries. Then Menton talks about Stephen Jay Gould
and his idea of Punctuated equilibrium — as if it were a desperate attempt to avoid the utter absence of transitional fossils.
Having presented what he imagines is an utterly devastating blow to the theory of evolution, Mention finishes his essay with this:
The reader may well ask at this point, of what use is evolutionary speculation itself — and why is it being taught as a “fact” in our schools?
There you have it, dear reader. The creation scientists at Answers in Genesis have clearly demonstrated that evolution is a fraud. So why don’t you give it up?
Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.