Hambo Explains the Cambrian “Explosion”

A week ago we wrote The Discoveroids’ Cambrian Explosion Is Fizzling, in which we we were predicting a wild Discoveroid reaction to new research into a topic they’ve made their own — the so-called Cambrian explosion. As we said:

It was that magic moment (lasting around 25 million years) when their intelligent designer — blessed be he! — came to this privileged planet to tinker with the primitive biosphere to create the basic forms of life we now see.

We wrote about some newly-discovered evidence showing that some of the animals known from their fossils in the Cambrian did indeed have earlier ancestors. We were expecting a response (a frantic creationist denial) from the Discoveroids, but we haven’t found it yet. Instead, to our delight, we found a response at Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo).

They just posted Will the Puzzle of the Cambrian Explosion Finally Be Solved? It was written by ol’ Hambo himself, the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

What’s the “Cambrian Explosion?” [Link to an AIG article omitted!] Well, this refers to an evolutionary enigma. In Cambrian rock layers, life appears to “explode” on the scene, as representatives of every major phylum just pop into existence fully formed and functioning. While this makes perfect sense in a biblical view (this is roughly when the global flood began and soon buried billions of creatures), in the evolutionary view, where are the ancestors to all these creatures?

Ah yes, the Flood makes perfect sense of all those fossils. Then he says (with his ellipsis):

This question puzzled Darwin . . . and it still puzzles evolutionists today. Well, a new study of “remarkably well-preserved fossils” is being touted as a 547-million-year-old piece of that puzzle.

He’s referring to the same study we wrote about last week. But Hambo is far wiser than those hell-bound Darwinist fools who did the research. He tells us:

Properly interpreted through the lens of the history in God’s Word [Ah, yes!], those layers are likely mostly flood sediment, as is the majority of the fossil record (including the Cambrian right above). So those layers are only about 4,350 years old, not over half a billion as is claimed.

Hambo is so wise! He continues:

Now here’s where we must understand the difference between “observational” and “historical” science. They did observational science — looking at the preserved soft tissues — but then interpreted what they saw through the lens of their evolutionary worldview. If you read through the original paper [He links to the original paper], you will find words like “could,” “may,” “possibly,” and “inferred” — in other words, they don’t really know, but they are interpreting the remains in light of a specific worldview as they attempt to connect so-called Cambrian creatures with those of the Ediacaran.

Yeah, those fuzzy words reveal that those foolish researchers were virtually admitting that they don’t know what they’re talking about. Hambo explains their problem:

The evidence doesn’t “speak for itself” as so many people wrongly believe. It must be interpreted — and what someone believes about the past frames their worldview and drives their interpretation. As we’ve said so many times, the creation/evolution issue isn’t ultimately about the evidence at all — it’s about an interpretation of the evidence based on your starting point of man’s word or God’s Word.

Hooray for Hambo! He wraps it up with this::

Contrary to the sensational claims of headlines, this study doesn’t solve Darwin’s puzzle of the Cambrian Explosion. When the forced evolutionary interpretation is ignored [Hee hee!], the data simply gives us more detail about a certain creature that was created according to its kind.

That’s it, dear reader. At last you understand the so-called Cambrian “Explosion.” Now go forth, and explain it to your colleagues.

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

20 responses to “Hambo Explains the Cambrian “Explosion”

  1. Let me pat myself on the shoulder. A week ago I wrote:

    Ol’Hambo won’t have any problem with this. He doesn’t have any use for Cambrian explosions anyway. ‘Cuz 6000 years.

    But I’m not sure that I’ll be happy to conclude that I’m as wise as Ol’Hambo …..

  2. When did the idea of a Cambrian explosion first occur?

  3. @TomS, Wikipedia On the Cambrian explosion: “The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted by William Buckland in the 1840s,[14] and in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin discussed the then inexplicable lack of earlier fossils as one o f the main difficulties for his theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.[15]”. You can check out the links for yourself.

    I knew that Darwin was puzzled by the sudden appearance of fossils, although of course he had no idea of the depth of the Precambrian. An Old Earth had been generally accepted long before that, even in ecclesiastical circles. Buckland was among other things Dean of Westminster

  4. Stephen Wilson

    “It must be interpreted — and what someone believes about the past frames their worldview and drives their interpretation.”

    Isn’t that also true for Hambo’s “word of god?”

  5. Theodore J Lawry

    Our dear SC can be doubly delighted Gunter Bechly explains that mainstream paleontology is all wrong.

  6. Dave Luckett

    Ham tells us, of the layers where the most basal animal fossils are found:

    “…those layers are likely mostly flood sediment, as is the majority of the fossil record (including the Cambrian right above)”

    So Ham is admitting the fact of superposition. The Cambrian is above the Ediacaran, which he takes to be “flood sediment” and only 4300 years old. The Cambrian is therefore post-flood. But many other layers are superpositioned above the Cambrian. Where did they come from, in even less time? And why would they be distinct among themselves?

    Reliable written historical records of landforms, the course and flow of rivers, descriptions of shorelines and so on, go back at least three thousand years, and no such enormous depositions are known. Hell, the Bible doesn’t say a word about such goings-on.

    But Ham is saying that post-flood sedimentation of huge extent and depth took place in – what? – one millennium, and then simply… stopped. The oceans shrank back into their basins, even though this enormous sedimentation had partly filled them – and that this happened after the flood. How much time did this take? The less time, the less credible it becomes, starting from “unbelievable” and rapidly passing through “absurd” and “preposterous” before exiting off the scale beyond “ridiculous”.

    I know Ham doesn’t believe that Egyptian and Sumerian civilisation is as much as 5000 years old. He has to fit everything into the 4300 years he thinks it has been since the flood. That’s already in flat defiance of the evidence, but this is going further. iI’s not enough for Ham to fit all ancient history into only 4000 years. That’s impossible, anyway. But now he has to fit it into even less.

    Sure, I know the real mouthbreathers he’s talking to have to take off their shoes to count beyond ten, and they don’t believe that numbers higher than what it costs for a new pick-up exist. But surely, surely, he can’t make a living by taking only their money?

  7. Christine Marie Janis

    Wise words from Bechly:

    “If a layman were to look at the figures of the fossil remains and even the 3D-reconstructiuons, he would be quite unimpressed and conclude that you can’t see much and surely nothing definitive. If I as a professional paleontologist look at the published images, I can only come to the same conclusion. ”

    That’s why you need to be a specialist in the area, not just a ‘professional’ in the general discipline. Bechly is not.

  8. @Christine, indeed. You *are* a professional palaeontologist, and you should know! To say nothing of the much greater level of detail available on detailed inspection at various wavelengths. Bechly is using a common creationist argument; I don’t see it because I don’t know enough about it so there’s nothing there to see

  9. @Dave Luckett, you don’t understand. Ham is quite explicit about this in his writings. *All* the sediments, from Ediacaran to the base of the Quaternary, were laid down in the Flood. So superposition is valid, but constrained by that 12 month timespan. If you think otherwise, it’s because of your evolutionist presuppositions

  10. Charles Deetz ;)

    Hambo, language scholar: “you will find words like “could,” “may,” “possibly,” and “inferred” — in other words, they don’t really know”

    Hambo geology scholar: “those layers are likely mostly flood sediment”

    So Hambo says Hambo doesn’t really know. Natch!

  11. Good catch, Charles Deetz!

  12. However the fossil record was formed, for example, if much of it was formed during the Flood, there remains the question about the pattern of fossils. The secular geologists and paleontolosts say that it represents change over time of the variety of life. YECs may say that the pattern is the result of hydrodynamic sorting in the Flood. Whatever the mechanism, it represents a creation of order by natural means, which seems to be contrary to what the creationists say is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

  13. TomS says: “However the fossil record was formed, for example, if much of it was formed during the Flood, there remains the question about the pattern of fossils.”

    I explained the fossil pattern in the early days of this blog. Although all air-breathing creatures that weren’t on the Ark died in the Flood, they didn’t die simultaneously. They died according to their sinfulness — the simplest creatures dying first, with minimal suffering, and the more complex creatures dying last, to prolong their agony — thus their appearance higher in the geological strata.

  14. @SC, Thanks, I’d always wondered. And you’ve confirmed my suspicion that squirrels are much, much more wicked than sauropods. Sauropods, after all, don’t eat my crocus bulbs

  15. Eddie Janssen

    Paul, a question: If all the sediments were laid down in 12 months where did all that stuff come from?

  16. @Eddie Janssen,

    1) You are using uniformitarian presuppositions
    2) Consider the erosion caused by all that water
    3) We are told of the opening of the fountains of the deep.Think how much stuff that would have stirred up?
    4) We know that the Flood was related to accelerated tectonics hence the subsequent raising of mountains above original flood level. This rapid orogeny would surely have led to equally rapid erosion.

    So where’s the problem?

  17. Eddie Janssen

    But that means that the waters of the deep would have stirred up the just neatly laid down sediments.

  18. @Eddie Janssen, If that’s what Genesis requires, that must indeed be what happened

  19. The fact that the Bible doesn’t have a hint about fossils or extinctions – it seems to be saying that care was taken so that there were no extinctions –

  20. Tuttut, TomS, with “it seems to be saying” you are interpreting god’s word to fit your materialist prejudices. That can’t be right. Accept the Bible as explained by Ol’Hambo! Never forget that he is “the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else”. He knows what the Bible says; what you think it seems to be saying is self-delusion at best (unless approved by Ol’Hambo).