Ken Hamm: Top 10 Myths About Evolution (And the Rebuttal)

[stromboli]

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Myth 10: Computer Simulations Prove Evolution
Computer Simulation
Every few months, a news report will trumpet a new computer program with “living cyber organisms” that prove how life on earth evolved. These simulations often show how artificial life-forms reproduce, grow, and change over several generations. The algorithms behind these creatures can be quite complex in an effort to be as close to the “real world” as possible.

But what do such programs prove? For one, it is always important to remember that any computer program reflects the biases and assumptions of the programmer. In most cases, these programmers assume evolution to be true, and their artificial environments reflect this. Also, many programs have goals and way points, something that is not true of supposed Darwinian evolution. The programmers do not make a program without certain boundaries and guidelines that direct what the program can and cannot do. They make one with a purpose in mind.

Finally, the greatest irony of all is that these brilliant programmers, who are trying to prove that life evolved without intelligence, pour plenty of brain power into making these sophisticated artificial organisms. Keep that in mind when they declare this proves life arose by sheer brainless natural selection.

Myth 9: Homologous (Similar) Structures Show Past Evolution
It is a staple of almost every biology book on the market: drawings of colored bones that show how evolution left its fingerprints on animals of common descent. These drawings point out how similar structure proves that we all come from one ancestor. The proof, they say, is as plain as the hand in front of our face.

Objectively, however, similar design and function can prove nothing. An iPod and an iPhone may have very similar parts, for example, but that certainly doesn’t mean the iPhone evolved from the iPod because of hardware glitches. Instead, because we have objective knowledge of history, we know that the same company designed both, which accounts for the similar design.

In the same way, similar structures in animals are just as strong an evidence for a common Designer leaving His mark on the works of His hand. Human designers often use similar solutions across a wide range of products. Why would we expect God not to do the same?

Myth 8: There Are Clear Transitional Fossils
Darwin fretted over the lack of them, paleontologists are still looking for them, but they are often touted as the foundation of evolutionary theory. What are they? Transitional fossils. According to evolutionists, transitional fossils are sparse for a number of reasons: (1) fossils in general only give us a glimpse of the past, (2) punctuated equilibrium may cause geologically “rapid” changes in species, and (3) they aren’t easy to distinguish. However, many of us have seen the supposed fossils of the horse and whale series and the new “missing link” called Tiktaalik.

We must remember, however, that fossils do not come with tags telling us when and how the animal was buried, its lifestyle, and if or how it was related to another species. Scientists must make reasonable assumptions based on what they believe about the past and extrapolations from the data. Without an objective source of information, these assumptions are often tied to the subjective evolutionary worldview. Creation scientists, on the other hand, see the fossil record as evidence for both a global Flood and also the amazing diversity of the original created “kinds.”

Because there are a lack of transitional forms (and the ones found, including “walking whales” and fish, are contentious to say the least), evolutionists must resort to blurring the lines and claiming that since all species are in transition, we should not expect to find “missing links.” Perhaps the reason we do not find true transitional forms is because one created kind does not, cannot, and has never changed into another created kind.


Myth 7: Ape-Human DNA Similarities
The “slam dunk” proof for human evolution is, according to evolutionists, the claimed 98% similarity between human and chimp DNA and the evidence of chromosomal fusion. Textbooks tell us that this proves the common ancestry of humans and apes from ape-like beings that lived millions of years ago.

What makes this a myth, however, is that evolutionists forget to mention the problems with this claim. For one thing, the percentage of similarity may sound impressive (depending on which percentage you find), but this represents millions of letters of difference in the DNA. Factor in that many of the differences in the DNA are not represented in the “98% similarity” (such as deletions) and epigenetic differences and the chasm grows. Second, seeing the “history” of humans evolving from chimps in DNA and chromosomes requires a prior commitment to evolution. Evolutionists interpret the data to mean what they want it to mean in light of Darwin’s myth.

Though there are similarities between apes and humans, this too is strong evidence for a common Designer, who gave humanity characteristics unlike any other creature He made. But this doesn’t stop evolutionists, knowingly or not, from using flat-out propaganda as in myth #6.

Myth 6: Apemen and Artistic License
The pervasive ape-to-human montage that shows an ape-like being on the left slowly becoming a human on the right is so much a part of culture that most anyone can recognize it. Natural history museums and TV shows give us supposed glimpses into the past and how human ancestors might have looked. Too bad it’s all a sham.

Fossil apes are difficult to come by, but several species have been found. However, a new ape fossil does not generate as much interest or prestige as one called a “human ancestor,” which is why there is so much focus on how ape fossils tie in to the evolution story. The desire to “fill in the gaps” leads to many false conclusions. For example, some of the supposed “bipedal” characteristics found in fossils are also found in living apes that are not bipedal.

In fact, imagination, wishful thinking, and presuppositions influence a great deal of the “reconstructions” we find in magazines, textbooks, and on TV. Enjoy the science, but don’t be taken in by the fiction.

Myth 5: Bad Design
If we look around us (and even in our own bodies), there are many structures that seem to show less-than-optimal design. What this means to some evolutionists is that this proves there is no creator. After all, a creator as intelligent as God would not have made imperfect designs.

Debunking this myth requires very little effort. First of all, how can humans judge what is optimal design? Some designs require a balance of efficiency and effectiveness, as we find in the human eye (a structure perfectly suited for human life). Also, we would hardly expect a universe that has been cursed with degeneration for over 6,000 years to maintain optimal design. The fact that we continue to survive, however, is evidence of how well the original design was. Finally, the broadening field of biomimetics (copying design from nature) shows us that God’s creation (even in its fallen state) offers a wealth of design potential—and good design at that.

Myth 4: Vestigial Organs
While evolution does its dirty work, it leaves behind vestiges of its machinations, or so the argument goes. Evolutionists claim that humans and other animals have leftover organs and DNA that prove the power of mutations and natural selection. In fact, this is often touted as a powerful rebuttal to creationists.

But the myth stops here. If an organ loses function, this proves only that the organ has lost function. Often, however, reports of this kind are premature and based on evolutionary expectations. The appendix, for example, was once a bastion of vestigiality, but now we know its function. One must wonder, in fact, how much evolutionary thought has retarded science by claiming that things are no longer needed.

In the end, the loss of function (after all other possibilities have been eliminated) is better evidence for a world that is in decay, which is exactly what the Bible says about the universe we inhabit.

Myth 3: Antibiotic Resistance
You may have heard this one a time or two. The development and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria (and pesticide-resistant plants and insects) is shouted from the rooftops as proof of evolution happening “right now.” Selection pressures push these organisms to evolve—at least, this is how evolutionists explain it.

Do bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics? Yes, this is documented science. Does this prove Darwinian evolution? No, not even close. Once again, evolutionists take the observations and pass them through their worldview filter. The problem (for evolutionists) is that the mutations that cause bacteria (and other organisms) to overcome environmental pressures are not the information-gaining mutations required for Darwin’s postulation. In fact, these mutations often come at a steep price to the organism—a price that doesn't show up until the environmental pressure is removed—and it often means the inability to compete with non-mutant bacteria.

Bacteria, in fact, show the amazing creativity of God in that they can swap DNA with other bacteria. This amazing feature reveals the provisions God made for them to survive in a fallen world and rapidly changing environments. However, they do not and cannot evolve into anything else. They have been and will always be bacteria.

Myth 2: Natural Selection Is Evolution in Action
Natural selection is the driving force behind evolution. This mantra has been repeated so often that people often conflate the two ideas. But are evolution and natural selection the same thing?

The short answer is that this is one of the most oft-repeated myths. Natural selection is an observable process that was certainly not first discovered by Charles Darwin. Species with certain characteristics survive better in a given environment. However, natural selection is nondirectional and does not lead anywhere. That is, if the environment changes, members of a species that were previously better adapted may no longer be. Evolution, on the other hand, is an unobservable process that requires direction (dinosaurs to birds, e.g.).

Natural selection can only act upon the information that already exists. When certain characteristics are selected, the overall genetic information decreases. Mutations have not been shown to reverse this process. This loss of information may make members of the same created kind unable to reproduce with each other, but this merely emphasizes how much loss can occur.

Many evolutionists would like to give natural selection powers that it does not have. Don’t let them swindle you.

Myth 1: All Scientists Agree
When all is said and done, the ultimate “proof” of evolution is an appeal to human authority. We are often reminded by anti-creationists that virtually all “real” scientists agree that evolution happened.

When examining this myth, one must keep in mind that those who make this claim often rely on the belief that the only real scientists are those who accept evolution. The argument, then, essentially boils down to this: evolutionists agree that evolution happened. This, of course, is an absurd argument, and we could just as easily say that creationists agree that creation happened.

The main problem, however, is that even if every single person accepted an idea, that doesn’t make the idea correct. The history of science (and humanity) is filled with majority views being incorrect. Evolution is another such idea. Secondly, many scientists accept evolution because the only alternative is design, which is against their naturalistic beliefs. They have a prior commitment to keeping any miraculous interaction out of their worldviews, and they accept evolution by default.

Finally, there are a growing number of scientists, creationist and not, who do not find the supposed evidence for evolution to be valid or acceptable. The truth of the matter is that while some evolutionists would like creationists like us not to exist, we do, and it is past time for the myths of evolution—and the myth of evolution itself—to be dismissed once and for all.

[stromboli]

And the rebuttal:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

10: Computer Simulations Prove Evolution
Every few months, a news report will trumpet a new computer program with “living cyber organisms” that prove how life on earth evolved. These simulations often show how artificial life-forms reproduce, grow, and change over several generations. The algorithms behind these creatures can be quite complex in an effort to be as close to the “real world” as possible.
The wording they chose here is no mistake, because it would be a myth to say that computer simulations “prove” evolution. What computer simulations do is allow scientists to better understand certain processes because simulations can run millions of different scenarios and show how certain processes in natural selection may work. Coupled together with laboratory evidence you can conclude how certain functions work.
The simulations are a tool to further our understanding and not a piece of evidence to supply proof. Misleading statements as this are how Answers in Genesis sell their product to uninformed masses.

9: Homologous (Similar) Structures Show Past Evolution
It is a staple of almost every biology book on the market: drawings of colored bones that show how evolution left its fingerprints on animals of common descent. These drawings point out how similar structure proves that we all come from one ancestor. The proof, they say, is as plain as the hand in front of our face.
Objectively, however, similar design and function can prove nothing. An iPod and an iPhone may have very similar parts, for example, but that certainly doesn’t mean the iPhone evolved from the iPod because of hardware glitches. Instead, because we have objective knowledge of history, we know that the same company designed both, which accounts for the similar design.
This reeks of the blind watchmaker analogy, but the gist is, of course species look similar because they have the same designer. That would be good and fine, except their own example misses some huge points. When I open an iPhone, I do not find leftover pieces that would make up the click wheel on an original iPod as vestigial. I find a whole new product, and obviously we know someone designed the iPhone and iPod, so we would not expect to find outdated and unneeded parts.
Yet in our bodies and other species we find this all the time. As a human fetus forms we see gills forming from our fish ancestry, we see the vestigial tailbone, and more.
Whales have vestigial hipbones for hind legs, and something like 1 in 500 whales are born with hind legs of some kind (useless limbs).
If we or any other species had been designed, we would not see leftover parts, we could see similarities, but the designer would not bring over parts that would go unused. It would make no sense.

8: There Are Clear Transitional Fossils
Darwin fretted over the lack of them, paleontologists are still looking for them, but they are often touted as the foundation of evolutionary theory. What are they? Transitional fossils. According to evolutionists, transitional fossils are sparse for a number of reasons: (1) fossils in general only give us a glimpse of the past, (2) punctuated equilibrium may cause geologically “rapid” changes in species, and (3) they aren’t easy to distinguish. However, many of us have seen the supposed fossils of the horse and whale series and the new “missing link” called Tiktaalik.
This is more misleading wording because every single fossil is a transitional fossil. All scientists know this and none claim we need a “clear transitional fossil” to prove evolution. It would not exist, an ape did not simply give birth to a human and there was never a half ape half human, this is simply not how evolution works, and I think Answers in Genesis knows this and are deliberately lying, and if they don’t know this, it is an even scarier sign of their ignorance.

7: Ape-Human DNA Similarities
The “slam dunk” proof for human evolution is, according to evolutionists, the claimed 98% similarity between human and chimp DNA and the evidence of chromosomal fusion. Textbooks tell us that this proves the common ancestry of humans and apes from ape-like beings that lived millions of years ago.
This evidence is in a way a slam-dunk because it fits in 100% with what one would expect to see if we evolved from an earlier species. Not just that we share DNA, because as we explained above, a designer may use DNA again and again if it worked, but its what DNA is shared and why, and what similarities do we share and is there DNA that is passed on that is now useless?
In the case of apes to humans, yes, there is DNA that is being used and “junk” DNA that is leftover and unnecessary, and why would any designer do that?
But some of the best evidence is the Chromosome 2. This explanation is much better served at the link provided, but here is an excerpt:
“Evolution makes testable predictions,” observes Brown’s Miller, who has been a leading defender of evolution, and whose testimony about chromosome 2 played a prominent role in the 2005 Dover, Pennsylvania, trial over the legality of teaching “intelligent design” in public schools. When it comes to chromosomes, Miller explains, the prediction of evolution is that if we have 46 chromosomes and our closest cousins have 48, then “somewhere in our genome should be a chromosome formed by a recent fusion, and that chromosome should have telomere DNA, and it should have two centromeres. That is a prediction made by evolution, and bingo, you look and there it is.”

6: Apemen and Artistic License
The pervasive ape-to-human montage that shows an ape-like being on the left slowly becoming a human on the right is so much a part of culture that most anyone can recognize it. Natural history museums and TV shows give us supposed glimpses into the past and how human ancestors might have looked. Too bad it’s all a sham.
Wait, so some popular T-shirt design that doesn’t reflect how evolution works is proof against evolution? I mean, now they just sound desperate.
Scientists again and again lament that cartoon because it is misleading, but it is a part of pop culture and is used often when describing evolution, however it is not scientific and is not used to provide evidence for evolution, so including it in their list is just rather pathetic.

5: Bad Design
If we look around us (and even in our own bodies), there are many structures that seem to show less-than-optimal design. What this means to some evolutionists is that this proves there is no creator. After all, a creator as intelligent as God would not have made imperfect designs.
Well, yes. Unless you want to argue cancer and birth defects are great design choices.
AiG continues:
Debunking this myth requires very little effort. First of all, how can humans judge what is optimal design? Some designs require a balance of efficiency and effectiveness, as we find in the human eye (a structure perfectly suited for human life).
Well, I can judge optimal design, and as I said, cancer and birth defects are not optimal, and there example of the eye? Not so perfect, we have a built in blind spot and we cannot see many colors and wavelengths on the prism. Eyes are far from perfect, and in fact many other species have better eyes than we do, so did their designer not like us as much?

4: Vestigial Organs
While evolution does its dirty work, it leaves behind vestiges of its machinations, or so the argument goes. Evolutionists claim that humans and other animals have leftover organs and DNA that prove the power of mutations and natural selection. In fact, this is often touted as a powerful rebuttal to creationists.
AiG goes on to focus on the appendix as proof this is a myth, as if that is the only vestigial part we have.
I already discussed this at length above, but gills, tailbone, whale legs, and the list goes on would make zero sense from a design standpoint. Why would a human have the capability to be born with a tail if it was never a part of our evolutionary past? Is their designer that lazy that he made monkeys and then used their bodies to make us and just bent us into shape, were we like the last thing on his list and he was just over it?

3: Antibiotic Resistance
You may have heard this one a time or two. The development and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria (and pesticide-resistant plants and insects) is shouted from the rooftops as proof of evolution happening “right now.” Selection pressures push these organisms to evolve—at least, this is how evolutionists explain it.
Antibiotic resistance is a piece of evidence for evolution, it is not standalone proof and no one claims it is. Yet how it evolves and why fit the evolution model perfectly and the predictability of their mutations fits right into the theory, as one would expect should evolution by natural selection exist, as it does.
AiG claims:
Bacteria, in fact, show the amazing creativity of God in that they can swap DNA with other bacteria.
I can swap DNA with my wife right now; I don’t think this is as impressive as they think it is. In fact, if arguing perfect design, why again are we battling life-threatening bacteria?

2: Natural Selection Is Evolution in Action
Natural selection is the driving force behind evolution. This mantra has been repeated so often that people often conflate the two ideas. But are evolution and natural selection the same thing?
They are not, scientists also don’t think they are, but Ken Ham wishes you to believe they do so he can call this claim a myth by saying they aren’t.
Lying for Jesus again.
Natural selection is a process that results in evolution. The idea of survival of the fittest –though not my favorite way of explaining evolution– is natural selection favoring “stronger” characterizes over weaker ones, over time and through different scenarios that drive groups apart this causes evolution and species change and adapt to environmental pressure, and we call this whole process evolution, and this is the important party, by natural selection. Paying attention to the word by is key.
What makes this important is that evolution could potentially happen by another process, but no evidence has surfaced as of yet to show otherwise, but natural selection is not evolution, and a species does not have to change or evolve into another species for natural selection to exist.

1: All Scientists Agree
When all is said and done, the ultimate “proof” of evolution is an appeal to human authority. We are often reminded by anti-creationists that virtually all “real” scientists agree that evolution happened.
Well, not “all” but of course this is another misleading title to a myth. I sense a pattern. Of course not “all” scientists agree on everything, but that is not how science works, science is not a democracy, science is dictated by evidence, not vote.
What makes scientific consensus important here is that their backing is based on evidence and the scientific method. They agree evolution by natural selection is a fact because they don’t have a choice if they are going to do their jobs honestly, the evidence says what it says, and there job as scientists is to try to disprove a claim, and in over 150 years, no one has.
This is not a conspiracy against creationism or a unanimous rally against God, it is simply scientists being honest about the findings and saying yes, evolution is true, whether you or me like it or not.
So there you have it, 10 more pathetic attempts by creationists to disprove evolution. A bit too simple to walk all over these claims, but the fact they have to use such weak arguments shows just how little they have going for them. All 10 of these seems to be nothing more than “nuh uh” when faced with actual evidence.

[Hydra009]

Natural selection is an observable process that was certainly not first discovered by Charles Darwin.

No shit.

Species with certain characteristics survive better in a given environment. However, natural selection is nondirectional and does not lead anywhere.

Bullshit.  Natural selection is directional (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login, for example.  Or the Galapagos finches.  Or any extant species at all, come to think of it.)

If you have heritable variation and you have some sort of difference in reproductive success, then you have natural selection, and inevitably, novel traits and speciation - all of which have been observed.  To say that this process doesn't lead anywhere is to be wrong on such a fundamental level that it beggars belief that this guy has perused even a single book about this topic.

[Mermaid]

Ouch. It burns. I cannot not get past the second bullet point without prescription drugs.

[SGOS]

Ken Hamm is a crazy person.

[josephpalazzo]

And the rebuttal:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

2: Natural Selection Is Evolution in Action
Natural selection is the driving force behind evolution. This mantra has been repeated so often that people often conflate the two ideas. But are evolution and natural selection the same thing?
They are not, scientists also don’t think they are, but Ken Ham wishes you to believe they do so he can call this claim a myth by saying they aren’t.
Lying for Jesus again.
Natural selection is a process that results in evolution. The idea of survival of the fittest –though not my favorite way of explaining evolution– is natural selection favoring “stronger” characterizes over weaker ones, over time and through different scenarios that drive groups apart this causes evolution and species change and adapt to environmental pressure, and we call this whole process evolution, and this is the important party, by natural selection. Paying attention to the word by is key.
What makes this important is that evolution could potentially happen by another process, but no evidence has surfaced as of yet to show otherwise, but natural selection is not evolution, and a species does not have to change or evolve into another species for natural selection to exist.

The rebuttal to myth #2 is kind of weak. One must start with DNA recopying itself with errors. These errors occur naturally and at random. And so we get errors that more often than not don't affect the individual, but sometimes the errors can give advantages or disadvantages. When it does give advantages, it means that the individuals are better at surviving in a given environment and passing those traits to the next generation. This is the meaning behind "natural selection". Of course, Darwin did not know about DNA, but his observations were correct and subsequently confirmed with the discovery of DNA, which happened nearly 100 years after he published his theory of evolution.

[Solitary]

  Take that Ken Hamm!  It's so obvious that Ken Hamm has never actually studied modern evolution. What's humorous is that what he accuses scientists of doing is what he is doing---being biased by his beliefs. Another great post by Strom!  Solitary

[Hydra009]

Ken Ham, guys.  One m.

[stromboli]

Ken Ham, guys.  One m.

The dude is such a ham he deserves 3 m's. 

[Green Bottle]

Take that Ken Hamm!  It's so obvious that Ken Hamm has never actually studied modern evolution. What's humorous is that what he accuses scientists of doing is what he is doing---being biased by his beliefs. Another great post by Strom!  Solitary

Yes,  and very interesting.                   Ken Ham Who..............?
 

[stromboli]

Yes,  and very interesting.                   Ken Ham Who..............?
 

Lucky you. He is our problem.

[Green Bottle]

Aye, and i think im really grateful for that, keep him please.   

[Jason78]

Ouch. It burns. I cannot not get past the second bullet point without prescription drugs.

I had to smoke a spliff just to get through the OP.

[stromboli]

Aye, and i think im really grateful for that, keep him please.   

I don't know. somebody over on that side of the pond owes us for Piers Morgan.

[Green Bottle]

quote
I don't know. somebody over on that side of the pond owes us for Piers Morgan.

Piers morgan is an ignorant up himself  English Arsehole Stromboli, and hated as much in Scotland as he is in the US..   just sayin......