Evolution Never Happened and It Never Will

Did our title shock you? It’s the inevitable conclusion of the newest post by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.

We found it at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry, titled Evolution Doesn’t Work the Way They Think. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

What is evolution? Well, that really does depend on who you ask, but most people use the term to refer to the origin of the species and the descent of all living organisms from a common ancestor — including humans supposedly evolving from apelike creatures.

That was a surprisingly rational statement from ol’ Hambo — but then he rejects it:

A recent article titled “Evolution Doesn’t Work the Way You Think It Does” attempted to explain the concepts of evolution, natural selection, and fitness to help readers better understand what evolution is all about. But was the author really describing evolution?

The article to which Hambo refers rambles a bit, but it’s not bad. Hambo, of course, has his own view of things. He says:

Throughout the article, Allison Fritts-Penniman, an evolutionary biologist, referred to various observable processes, such as mutations and natural selection, and then folded them into the overarching theme of evolution. Now, this is where the difference between observational and historical science comes in.

Ooooooooooooh! Hambo knows there are two kinds of science, and fools like you don’t have a clue. He explained it all a few years ago — see Ken Ham’s Historical vs. Observational Science. Now he tells us:

You see, we observe populations changing. We observe adaptation and natural selection. We observe mutations. All of this is observational science, and it has nothing to do with evolution as people most commonly define the term! This science is directly testable, observable, and repeatable.

That’s “observational science.” On the other hand:

Evolution in the molecules-to-man sense, however, is historical science and is not directly testable, observable, or repeatable. It is an interpretation, grounded in naturalism and atheism, that attempts to explain the observational evidence through a specific worldview lens.

Brilliant! He continues:

Natural selection and adaptation work on information that already exists (the God-created genetic diversity) — these processes do not produce brand-new genetic information and usually result in a loss of information. And mutations are a corruption of already-existing information — they don’t produce brand-new genetic information either.

Evolution produces nothing! Why can’t you evolutionists understand that? Let’s read on:

So where did all the genetic information in our DNA — a complex language system — come from? That’s something evolutionary ideas have never been able to explain. [Evolutionists are fools!] But evolution requires the addition of massive amounts of brand-new genetic information in order for a single-celled organism to evolve into a human over billions of years. But no such naturalistic process has ever been observed.

Actually, it has been observed — see New ‘Information’ from Gene Duplication. But don’t tell Hambo, it’ll just get him upset. Here’s another excerpt from his post:

The observational evidence doesn’t confirm evolutionary ideas. The evidence is only explained within a creation worldview based on God’s Word beginning in Genesis. In the biblical view, God created organisms according to their kinds with maximum genetic diversity to start with. So each kind will always reproduce within its kind and never between kinds (which is what we observe). There will be a lot of variety and diversity within a kind because of the incredible amount of created genetic diversity God gave each kind at the very beginning, but one kind never changes into another kind.

Ooooooooooooh! “One kind never changes into another kind.” Remember that, dear reader. Here’s more:

Natural selection, adaptation, mutations — all of these observable processes make sense and are easily explained with a biblical view of creation and the fall. But in an evolutionary view, there’s no mechanism to produce the genetic information needed.

And now we come to the end:

As always, the observational evidence confirms the history in God’s Word, not evolutionary ideas. Molecules-to-man naturalistic evolution is impossible and never happened . . . and never will!

Now do you understand, dear reader? If not, there is no hope for you.

Copyright © 2020. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

16 responses to “Evolution Never Happened and It Never Will

  1. Michael Fugate

    Was all of the information available at the beginning slowly converted into sin?
    Ham math. Information is inversely proportional to the amount of sin. Sin is inversely proportional to the frequency of YECs in the population. Sintropy?

    Oh, and all this time I thought Jesus said all things are possible with God – If God exists evolution must be possible.

    “Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?” Jeremiah 32:27
    Which makes one wonder why God can’t correct its followers.

  2. chris schilling

    In 2017, crowds of biologists gathered at a small village in Portugal claim to have witnessed a creationist actually grasp the concept of descent with modification, and even start expounding on the theme of exaptation at the molecular level.

    The local priest, Father Miguel Santos — now defrocked — scoffed at the rumours, stating the biologists had more plausibly been subject to a mass hallucination caused by prolonged staring at the sun, and that “there is no such thing as miracles.”

  3. Michael Fugate

    Speaking of miracles, if God really used plain old dirt to fashion humans, what happened to the silicon?

  4. If man came from dirt, how come there is still dirt?

  5. Yesterday TomS askes a few questions. Let me adapt them a bit:

    What is information? What is evidence for (new) information? What is the relationship between information and nature (matter, physics) or the supernatural (spirit, creation) or chance?

    Of course mathematicians (Kolgomorov, Shannon) have answered the first question. If we accept one of them Ol’Hambo is simply wrong.

    “these processes do not produce brand-new genetic information and usually result in a loss of information.”
    Apparently information a la Ol’Hambo can be measured. This means they belong to ….. observational science.

    “evolution requires the addition of massive amounts of brand-new genetic information”
    How does Ol’Hambo measure these amounts?

    “DNA — a complex language system”
    Nope. DNA is not a language system, let alone a complex one.


    Of course it’s nice (for our inner hobbits, so to say) to see confirmed what we already know: Ol’Hambo’s version of creacrap is IDiocy plus some Bible quotes (plus rejecting 13,7 billions of years).

  6. @MichaelF is puzzled: “Which makes one wonder why God can’t correct its followers.”
    Free will, sin. Like all creacrappers Ol’Hambo wants to tell his god how to do his work. He suffers from greed (check his income), laziness (when it comes to thinking), an excessive belief in his own abilities and above all vanity:

    “the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else”
    God doing something about this would imply turning Ol’Hambo into an automaton. Rather we could wonder what would be the difference, given that Ol’Hambo has been repeating the same nonsense for decades. We also could wonder how likely it is that Ol’Hambo will repent for these sins before he dies.

  7. Michael Fugate

    Then why the Flood?

  8. chris schilling

    “[T]hese processes do not produce brand-new genetic information and usually result in a loss of information.”

    “The creatures outside looked from Ham to Behe, and from Behe to Ham, and from Ham to Behe again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

    — Animal Farm, tweaked.

  9. This is a creationist with his back to the wall. He can’t deny adaptation. He can’t deny selection. He can’t deny the appearance of, and selection for, new adaptive functions, structures, processes, in living things. All that is part of the “observational science” that he approves so unctuously. What he is trying to deny is that these changes can ever accumulate until they amount to a change in “kind”.

    Two layers of rebuttal apply. One, his denial is itself without evidence. Changes in adaptive features are known to evolve through mutation and natural selection among the variants. The process has been many times observed in the lab and in the field. If continued, it must – must! – amount to separate populations, and, over sufficient time, separate species, genera, families and so on. Speciation has already been observed. If he denies that speciation or higher taxonomic separation can occur, he must demonstrate how it is prevented. This he cannot do.

    Two: He is taking refuge in an indefinite term – “kind” – that he can use like Humpty-Dumpty. It means whatever he wants it to mean, without definition. Definition of terms must be the first step in any debate; but Ham simply will not say what he means by “kind”. He’s aware that any definition will explode in his face. But that is merely dishonest argumentation.

    All this is so plainly obvious as to make one wonder who is going to be taken in by it. The only answer that suggests itself is, “The stupid and the ignorant.” Alas, one finds one’s self reflecting that God must have a great fondness for such people: He made so many of them.

  10. Dave Luckett

    Ah, free speech. Well, of course the Guardian can be right. There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech, no matter how classically liberal the regime. Some restrictions endure, although most of them – lese majeste, for example – have gone.

    One may not threaten another with any act that would be a crime if it were committed. One may not use any words that can be reasonably held to incite a crime, or to cause an event that itself causes injury or loss. (Oliver Wendell Holmes’ example, shouting “fire!” in a crowded theatre, applies.) At civil law, one may not utter in speech or in writing words that are provably false and defamatory – hence, slanderous or libellous respectively. (In the US, a person who alleges slander or libel must also demonstrate actual malice, if they are in the public eye.)

    All those are restrictions on free speech. Practically anybody would hold them to be reasonable and wholesome, provided they are not abused, for example by using litigation itself as a sanction.

    But, say I, thus far and no further.

    No freedom is absolute. All rights and liberties – all, without exception – have limits. That does not mean that the limits should be narrowed.

    Specifically, while I and the vast majority of decent reasonable people might hold words to be hurtful, hateful, unfair, offensive, insulting, derogatory or provocative, I believe that the right to utter them remains. Only if they contain a threat or an incitement or are a public mischief in themselves, with specific, direct and identifiable consequences, should they be criminal, and only actionable if slanderous and/or libellous within the meaning of the civil law.

    Anyone arguing for what amounts to an extension of those restrictions should be regarded with extreme suspicion. They may be honest actors, but they are in the same place as theocrats on freedom of religion. Restricting that right can cut both ways. It might not be your particular religion that is the one favoured. Similarly, restrictions on freedom of speech restrict your own, a state of affairs that you might come to regret.

    And I might say, pursuant to my own right to speak freely, I tend to doubt that advocates for more restrictions are actually honest actors.

  11. Michael Fugate

    With freedom comes responsibility.

  12. Back in 1852, Herbert Spencer published an essay in reaction to the objection that events in the history of life are not observed, and therefore not scientific. One can find the essay, “The Development Hypothesis” in Wikisource.org. It’s a little out of date, preceding Darwin’s “Origin”, but Spencer is a skilled essayist.

  13. Michael Fugate

    Doesn’t Ham need to use historical science to verify the Genesis account? Otherwise how can he say that science is in accord with the Bible?

  14. Oh come on, MichaelF, you know the answer. ‘Cuz god.

  15. Dave Luckett

    No, not necessarily. With freedom should come responsibility. But the freedom exists nonetheless. Always insisting that “responsibility” does not mean “refraining from exercising the freedom”. A freedom that should not be exercised because it might be considered irresponsible is no freedom at all. And it most certainly does not mean “not hurting someone else’s feelings”.