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.