This is from one of the creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.
Their post is titled Feedback: Observed Evolution. The author is Harry F. Sanders, III, about whom we know nothing. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
A recent tweet directed at Ken Ham made a frequent evolutionary assertion: “Evolution has been directly observed both in the lab and in the field. If you had done any research whatsoever, you would know this.” The commenter then linked to a couple of studies, which he claimed proved his point. Unfortunately, he and other evolutionists make some serious errors in interpreting the evidence they observe due to the influence of their worldview and thus undermine their conclusions.
Harry has a couple of footnotes, one of which refers to Richard Lenski’s E. coli long-term evolution experiment. He dismisses that later in his post. Meanwhile, he says:
Evolutionists like to point to variation within kinds and claim that species are evolving. While they are not evolving in the sense that affirms Darwinism, species do change as part of a process called speciation. [But that’s not evolution.] Speciation occurs based on natural variation existing in an organism’s genome. Every species of animal has genetic variability built into its DNA. [It’s built in!] That allows the population to change in response to environmental conditions for survival. Evolutionists will cite this as evidence for their worldview. However, this change does not support evolution for several reasons.
According to Harry, every species has the built-in ability for, ah, micro-evolution, but not macro evolution. He doesn’t use those terms, but that’s what he’s saying. It’s the micro-macro mambo. We discussed that old clunker in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Then he tells us:
Populations of organisms change in response to a number of factors, the most obvious being a change in habitat. This is what Charles Darwin and others observed in the finches of the Galapagos Islands. The birds’ beaks varied in structure and thickness depending on the conditions in which the they lived. However, this outward change was rooted in the birds’ genetics. While much of a finch population had what is considered the optimal beak for its conditions, a small portion of the population had a less than optimal beak, but not disadvantageous enough to cull them from the population. This factor kept the information for this beak in the population. When conditions changed again, the less-than-optimal beak became more optimal, and offspring with this beak began to survive more frequently. Conversely, the birds with the beak that had previously been optimal began to struggle to survive, and many died. This is illustrative of natural selection, but not evolution.
It’s natural selection, but not evolution. Got that? No? He explains:
Evolutionists often conflate natural selection with evolution, but they don’t have a scientific basis to do so. [Huh?] Natural selection selects existing information in the genome. It does not produce any new information. New information in the genome would be required to take an existing organism and turn it into a different organism.
Ah yes, it’s all about information. For more on that, see Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information. Harry continues:
The finches on the Galapagos Islands have not evolved into mammals or even something between mammals and birds. [Gasp!] No matter their beak size, they remain birds, and, more specifically, finches. There is simply a variation in the appearance and function of the bird’s beak. However, because evolutionists have an entirely naturalistic worldview, they interpret this variation as evidence for their theory.
Obviously, evolutionists are fools! Hey, are you getting the impression that Harry’s post is nothing but one old clunker after another? You’re not wrong. It’s getting tedious, and we’re only about half-way through with it. Well, let’s read on a little longer:
The evolutionists’ insistence on variation being the same thing as evolution is not confined to birds or vertebrates. They have conducted long-running experiments with bacteria [Another reference to Lenski’s experiment], some reaching thousands of generations of bacteria. These studies have indicated that bacteria change quickly and become genetically unique from one another, rapidly producing primarily different strains. However, the bacteria remained bacteria through thousands of generations. [Wow, they’re still bacteria!] They did not evolve into multicellular organisms. In fact, they did not even change to a new kind of bacteria. This shows that even speciation is not the same as evolution, and variation in the gene pool is not evidence of evolution.
This is getting ridiculous! Here’s one more excerpt:
Ultimately how a person views the evidence is dependent upon their worldview. [Groan!] Evolutionists view the world through a secular materialistic worldview and thus interpret everything through that lens.
Since creationists accept the biblical account of the origin of life, they interpret the evidence differently. The observable variation in the natural world is a result of the variation built into the original created kinds, as it is stated in the Bible. [Where?] … Evolutionists choose to base their worldview on man’s fallible word, while creationists base their worldview on God’s infallible Word, the Bible. The battle is not over the evidence: the battle is over the worldview used to interpret the evidence.
Okay, that’s enough! Hey — look on the bright side. You got to see a huge ark-load, and you didn’t have to travel to Kentucky and pay Hambo’s admission fee. Neat deal!
Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.