This one will totally shatter you, dear reader. We found it at the website of 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. Hambo’s article is titled Famous Ape-to-Man Diagram “So Wrong”? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
We’ve all seen it — the apelike-creature-to-man diagram. It shows a supposed line of progression from an ape (or ape-like ancestor, which evolutionists picture as an ape), to a slightly more bipedal ape, to a more human-like ape, eventually culminating in modern man.
Yes indeed, we’ve all seen it. What about it? Hambo says:
This progression has long been presented as fact in most textbooks, museums, and in the media. But is that idea “so wrong”? [Wrong?]
Well, some evolutionists are saying that the famous image is wrong because it gives the impression that evolution has a direction. A recent article quotes an evolutionist saying that image should be “expunged from the record of everything.”
Hambo’s link is to an article in the Daily Mail about the views of Dr. Adam Rutherford. Hambo quotes him:
[That image] points to the idea that evolution has a direction . . . It suggests that there are ape-like ancestors and they begin to walk upright and eventually become us and it goes in a very nice, neat line. This isn’t how evolution works at all. We evolve to occupy whatever environmental niche we’re in at that time. We quite easily in the future could evolve into a completely different shape or go back to being quadrupedal [walking on all fours]. That’s just how evolution works. The idea that evolution ‘improves’ is not correct.
We could play with that all day, but ol’ Hambo eagerly leaps upon it and declares:
So, evolution is directionless and humans could even evolve back to walking on all fours? Now that seems to suggest evolution does have a direction . . . in that case, going from walking on four limbs to walking on two limbs, to walking on four limbs, whatever is most advantageous. Confused?
Nice try, Hambo, but no, we’re not confused. Oh wait — he’s not done yet. His babbling about Rutherford’s statement continues:
Also, if evolution is directionless, how did man evolve? [Huh?] Really, what they believe is that by directionless chance random processes, all life somehow evolved and eventually man evolved, and we know it happened, they argue, because man and animals exist, therefore evolution is fact. Yep, that’s the story (fairytale) of evolution.
That paragraph is a classic. Let’s read on:
Also, Dr. Rutherford says mankind should never be looked on as a “pinnacle of evolution,” as was once taught. Actually, the whole idea of mankind as a “pinnacle” is itself borrowed from the Christian worldview because man is the pinnacle of creation. We alone are made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), different from animals. So this evolutionist is trying to be consistent with his atheistic evolutionary view by not making man the pinnacle . . . or higher than the apes.
According to that newspaper, what Rutherford actually said was this:
He said all organisms – from a human on the plains of Africa to a tiny insect – have adapted to exist in their environment. ‘It’s a very human, hubristic point of view, that we think of ourselves as the pinnacle of evolution,’ he added.
Hambo’s rant continues:
Directionless evolution is actually man’s religion [Huh?] to try to explain life without God. Yes, evolution is a religion.
Hambo has a few other things to say, but we’ll quit with that strange insult — evolution is a religion. Jeepers, he really knows how to make us feel bad.
Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.