AIG ‘Accepts’ Natural Selection

Don’t be misled by this one. It appears to be a significant concession by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. This just showed up at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), Hambo’s creationist ministry: Understanding Natural Selection.

It was written by two of of Hambo’s creation scientists: sweet Georgia Purdom and Nathaniel Jeanson. It begins with an introduction in which Hambo says: “I endorse their conclusions and hope this will help answer, in part, the question of how the many species of animals we have today descended from those kinds that were on the Ark.” Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

The term natural selection has been defined clearly for over 150 years. Charles Darwin put the term in the title to his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, and he articulated what he meant in the text of his seminal work:

[They quote Darwin:] But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection.

Then they say something surprising:

Thus, “survival of the fittest” or “survival of the fittest to reproduce” is the standard definition of the process termed natural selection, and it finds no conflict with the text of Scripture. Ever since the fall (Genesis 3), living things have been dying and killing each other, and the self-evident fact of natural selection is perfectly consistent with the Bible. Natural selection has happened, and it continues to happen every day.

Furthermore, as biblical creationists, we must affirm that the term natural has been used from the earliest days of formal scientific inquiry to describe God’s upholding of the universe through the laws of nature. For the Christian, nature is simply shorthand for God’s providential operation of the creatures and creation we see around us. In our example above [which we omitted], the culling of the sickly gazelle removes its unique genetic contribution from the overall genetic pool of the gazelle population, potentially preventing propagation of its genetic mutations from spreading.

In addition, repetition of this predation cycle over time could alter the ratios of genetic varieties in the gazelle species, potentially leading to the formation of a new species. Thus, natural selection is an observable fact that can participate in the process of variation and speciation within the original kinds of animals that God created.

But don’t be confused, dear reader. Their apparent acceptance of natural selection is about as serious as Hambo’s acceptance of science. The creation scientists tell us:

Unfortunately, evolutionists have taken a straightforward truth and co-opted it for their anti-biblical purposes … . In the evolutionary worldview, natural selection and mutations are the primary driving forces resulting in the evolution of all living things from a single-celled common ancestor over billions of years—without any divine intervention. In essence, atheistic evolutionists substitute natural selection for God Himself!

Okay, things are back to normal. They continue:

The misuse of this term shouldn’t intimidate biblical creationists. After all, people have been co-opting terms for anti-biblical purposes for millennia. [Skipping their examples.] The same principle holds true in the realm of natural selection. Just because unbelievers co-opt the term for their anti-Christian purposes doesn’t mean that natural selection isn’t real or that the term should be thrown out. Instead, biblical creationists should point out the ability of natural selection to remove the sickliest individuals from a population and to preserve the least degenerate and most well-adapted organisms, and we should also emphasize scientific inability of natural selection to evolve the diversity of life from a common ancestor.

In other words, AIG’s “acceptance” of natural selection is nothing more than the micro-macro mambo, discussed in Common Creationist Claims Confuted.

They go on and on, and at the end they tell us:

Thus, the process of natural selection — the survival of the fittest to reproduce — is a fact that highlights the providential care of God over a fallen creation and brings glory to his power, judgment, and salvation.

In other words, they’re still creationists. You’re not surprised, are you?

Copyright © 2018. 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

15 responses to “AIG ‘Accepts’ Natural Selection

  1. I seem to have been suspended on Twitter for continually telling them they are lying c*nts. The AiG account is a bot that just recycles lies. That crap is over two years old “on February 16, 2016”.

  2. Hamster is lying – what a surprise. He knows full well that evolution & natural selection are not “survival of the fittest”. The creationist community has been told that, point blank, for ages now.

  3. Charles Deetz ;)

    Natural=God therefor natural selection is God’s selection. Now does that mean that the natural food store in town is actually a spiritual food store?

  4. Ken Ham. What a coward.
    Does he personally author this pathetic rationale for “natural selection”?Nope. He has to hide behind the views of a couple drones from a Sector7G, and ‘endorse’ their views.
    What a gutless wonder!

  5. Michael Fugate

    Like creationists co-opting science for their religious purposes?

  6. 11 species a day Ken, you lying mofo.

    That’s how many “naturally selected “ new species would be needed since the ark JUST BASED ON YOUR OWN NUMBERS.

    11. New. Species. Every. Day.

    Explain that, after you’ve co-opted a scientific concept for your con job.

  7. It’s not the first time I meet this. I’ve seen creacrappers before who claim that natural selection is not equal to and/or does not prove evolution. Most of them are even OK with speciation. The thing that matters to creacrappers is “Evolution Theory is wrong” and they don’t care how. And what they really mean is “I’m no kin of no monkey”. The rest is window dressing.

  8. “…people have been co-opting terms for anti-biblical purposes for millennia.”

    I thought this sounded interesting, so I went to the AiG site to see what he was talking about. And what did I find? Gay marriage! I was very disappointed

  9. And the funniest claim that I have heard over the years is that Natural Selection is a fact but Evolution is unproven! There is no lower bound to stupidity.

  10. The funniest for me is the hunt for Noah’s Ark on Mount Ararat.
    I find is funny because it does not have bad consequences for people other than those engaged in the silliness.
    But what makes it superlatively so is that the Bible does not say that the Ark landed on Mount Ararat. That mountain didn’t even get that name until centuries after the Bible was completed. What the Bible says is that the Ark landed on the mountains of Ararat (a district of the Ancient Near East, perhaps Urartu).

  11. Michael Fugate

    so natural selection is just another name for God, like Allah or Yahweh or Odin or Shiva?

  12. Michael Fugate

    Apparently ICR is not happy with Jeanson’s “belief” in natural selection and has been criticized by the Salem-effect squared (engineer and physician) Randy Guliuzza.
    Guliuzza has a book that you surely want to read:

    Hox genes prove God exists!

  13. Purdom/Jeanson: “In addition, repetition of this predation cycle over time could alter the ratios of genetic varieties in the gazelle species, potentially leading to the formation of a new species. Thus, natural selection is an observable fact that can participate in the process of variation and speciation within the original kinds of animals that God created.”

    Were They There?

  14. Eric Lipps

    Well, when you’ve only got 6,000 years to work with, how much selection can really happen, at least with larger species? So of course it’s safe for creationists to endorse natural selection.

    They need it anyway, to account for the explosive speciation which must have followed the Flood.

  15. Were there species before the Flood?